What's next, is Steele going to welcome gun control candidates into the party? Candidates advocating for higher taxes and spending?
In a September 3rd interview, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele told a surprised Columbus Dispatch reporter that he would lead the charge of pro-abortion GOP candidates if abortion is a value in their community. Columbus Dispatch Senior Editor Joe Hallett asked Steele "if there is room in the party for a pro-abortion rights candidate…"
Hallett quoted Steele's reply:
"There absolutely is, there absolutely is… The key thing right now-and I think this is true for Republicans across the country-is to have leadership that reflects the communities I live in, where we're from. As we get ready for the battles that lie ahead from this district to all the districts surrounding the state, that you're going to find those candidates emerge and rise up who reflect those values in those communities, and that's a very important step for the party to take, I think, and I'm looking forward to help lead that charge in the future."
There are two glaring problems with his statement. First, the official Republican Party Platform states: "We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it." Steele has thus flagrantly violated his own Party Platform by agreeing to fund the campaigns of GOP candidates who advocate abortion.
Second, the Platform touts itself as "The party of ideas, rather than a mere coalition of interests." But Steele's comments encourage candidates to be influenced by special interests in their communities rather than Republican principles of life, lower taxes, and smaller government.
It appears that Steele has forgotten that America elects representatives, not merely agents of puppeteer constituents. The words of the father of conservatism Edmund Burke in his 1774 speech at Bristol are more important now than ever: "Your Representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
This time, Steele is "lead[ing] that charge" of GOP candidates who refuse to protect preborn babies. What kind of pastel-colored GOP candidate will he welcome next? What if a candidate's community wants to give citizenship to illegal aliens , higher taxes, universal healthcare, and more government programs?
During the Jan. 4, 2009 RNC debate for the Chairmanship sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform, Steele revealed that he did not own a single firearm. Could this mean Chairman Steele will use RNC donations to welcome advocates of gun control next?
How would one go about giving Steele the boot? Or, is the RNC controlled by a Republican version of Soros (or some other "star-chamber" of beltway insiders and north-east "country-club" conservatives) and there's absolutely nothing that can be done?
It is sickening to think that no matter who we elect, they will be depending upon the RNC for support.
When Republicans act like Democrats, they don't get elected.
I’m adamantly anti-abortion, and yet I’d support Rudy Giuliani in a New York minute over Duke Cunningham, who received a 0% rating from NARAL.
Sam Johnson, the Republican congressman I helped elect in Texas (where I live), holds a much stronger view on gun rights than any Republican congressman who could be elected in the Northeast. But if Sam Johnson ran for Congress in Massachusetts, he’d lose.
The party with the majority of Congressmen/Senators elects the speaker of the House and the leader of the Senate, who control which bills are brought to a vote. Insisting that all Republicans hold exclusively conservative positions will only insure that the Democrats retain power.
To those who believe that it’s everything or nothing, and withhold your support for any candidate who isn’t ideologically pure, I have one simple question. How do you like having a veto-proof Democrat Congress and the most Liberal president in history?
We don’t have an ideologically-driven political system like England, which elects “Conservatives” and “Liberals”. We have a party system that elects Republicans or Democrats, and the occasional independent. If we act ideologically in a non-ideological political system, we guarantee our minority status, which means we guarantee that we will have little political power.
Without political power, there is no way to advance our principles legislatively. Advancing 50% of our principles is better than advancing none of them, particularly if those 50% will help lay the foundation for educating the public as to the overall wisdom of conservatism, which will allow for a greater advancement of principles the following election(s).
Politics is about power as well as ideology. If you insist on complete ideological purity, you will insure victory for your opponents. This doesn’t mean abandoning principles for power. Rather, it means that you must operate in the real world, and recognize that some populations are not as ideologically or morally advanced as others.
Running Sam Johnson for Congress in Texas works just fine. Running him for Congress in NY City is a disaster. So, you run Sam Johnson for Congress in Texas, and get someone who is maybe 30% conservative to run for Congress in NYC. You now end up with 2 Republican congressmen (and if the same model is followed in other districts), a Republican majority in the House and Senate. No Nancy Pelosi, no Harry Reid, no ultra-liberal legislation.
Or, you can run Sam Johnson’s twin in NYC, lose, elect a Democrat candidate who is 0% conservative, keep Nancy and Harry in power, and insure a few million more dead babies through federally funded abortions. But, at least you’ll feel good about yourself because you kept people out of the party who weren’t conservative enough for you.
If you want to exercise political power in America, recognize and understand how that power is actually acquired, and what happens to those who lack the power to push those principles.
If you want to remain ideologically pure, forget about ever holding real power, and be content to know you personally oppose killing babies, but weren’t actually prepared to do anything in the real world to actually limit or restrain abortion, because you’d rather be ideologically pure than elected to office.
It makes no sense, in the American system of government, for the perfect to be the enemy of the good. And it makes no sense to pretend that we have an ideologically-driven system of elections and government in this country when we don’t. The ideology of the House and Senate leadership is important, and that’s where our focus should be — helping those elected to office gain leadership positions who hold the strongest conservative values. If it takes a pro-abort Republican candidate in Massachusetts to give us that Republican majority where we can get a strong conservative leader, I’ll gladly support him/her.
In short, I’d rather have 50 more Rudy’s in Congress and, through them, regain control of the House where a Conservative leadership can set the agenda, than run 50 losing candidates, feel good about myself, and let Nancy Pelosi continue to push legislation permitting federal funding of abortion.
This is how politics operates in the real world. Wishing things were different won’t advance your interests one bit.
>During the Jan. 4, 2009 RNC debate for the Chairmanship sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform, Steele revealed that he did not own a single firearm.
*** By the way, I don't own a firearm, and in fact have never fired a weapon in my life. And yet, I wrote the following article "Defending the Second Amendment".
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/06/10/defending-the-second-amendment/
How is this possible? Why am I not automatically in favor of gun control because I don't own a gun? Could it be that life is actually a bit more complicated than a cartoon version of reality?
Phillip Ellis Jackson opined: "…To those who believe that it’s everything or nothing, and withhold your support for any candidate who isn’t ideologically pure, I have one simple question. How do you like having a veto-proof Democrat Congress and the most Liberal president in history?…"
Forget about ideologically pure, we haven't even demanded adherence to basic conservative principles in ANY candidate. For example, do you recall a recent election where we ran a RINO (McCain) for president? Do you also recall that the republican electorate came alive only AFTER a decent conservative (Palin) joined the ticket?
I would argue that the reason the GOP hasn't been winning lately IS NOT because it is "too conservative". On the contrary, I don't believe it has been conservative enough and I'm not talking about hard-core, far right, strict party purity. I'm referring to basic, conservative principles. We just went through 8 years of the GOP spending like sailors on shore-leave, etc, ignoring those basic conservative principles.
Also, recall the stimulus monstrosity would not have passed were it not for northern, "compromise-conservatives"… The problem is that when they choose to compromise, they can compromise in a HYOOOOOOGE way.
They don't have to be ideologically pure, but is it really too much to ask for a certain basic standard to be met before the GOP will burn funds on their behalf? Is that really too much to ask?
Now that E-Verify is becoming a nationwide verification application to extract 20 million plus illegal immigrants from businesses. It is now growing in aggressive performance for placing true US workers in the job line and outing illegal labor. This operation should now extend to certainly more purposeful uses? That means not just federal contractors but everybody who draws a pay check? Should a health care reform pass all obstacles in the House and Senate chambers, it could have an invaluable function of checking people who are not only applicants for jobs, but health care reform registry. Illegal immigrants are already getting free emergency hospital care and–WE–pay for it. In the future it should be considered to vet a person’s nationality status, when applying for a mortgage? The United States banking system, financial institution were all but swept away on a deluge of corruption that has very sinister undertones in an organization called ACORN.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform now is under state and federal investigations at this very moment. Other involved institution impacted both Freddie Mac/Freddie Mae and a scheme incorporating underhand minority lending practices. But you might not have heard any of this, from the liberal media about the massive illegal alien mortgage accusations. The whole debacle was the involvement in a corrupt enabling banking industry and ethnic lobbyists, using unethical methods, along with Bush administration to guarantee loans for low income and people that could not possibly afford mortgages. Didn't Wall Street, the government regulators learn anything from the Savings and loan crisis in the 1980’s?
GOOGLE—Michelle Malkin, she has her own blog and also Google illegal immigrants—mortgages—home loans. Find out about the shady deals which had a massive impact on the 2009 real estate crash. In Addition read how we as citizens and legal residents can demand permanent E-VERIFY. Tell the politicians in Washington at 202-224-3121 It’s about time they worked for the USworking man/woman, instead of paying-off favors to the wealthy business lobbyists? NUMBERSUSA & JUDICIAL WATCH has more answers about corrupt lawmakers and the issues that effects us all. HELP AMERICA SURVIVE. BETTER START COUNTING YOUR PENNIES, BECAUSE IF THE DEM'S PASS ANOTHER AMNESTY–WILL HAVE MILLIONS OF MORE DESTITUTE ILLEGAL ALIENS AND FAMILIES TO SUPPORT!. THE BUSINESSES THAT HIRE THEM WILL NOT!
As a resident of Maryland (one of the most blue states in the US), I can tell you that Phillip is 100% on target. Marylanders in the suburban areas have shown they will elect a Republican if the Republican is moderate in at least SOME areas.
JDH- I tend to agree philosophically with what you said about basic, conservative principles. But I have to admit that I'm at a loss to define what those are (as are many people, I'm sure). Do you have the definitive list of the basic conservative principles? Or is there even such a thing? I've heard and seen different lists, for example, that may or may not include abortion. These different lists just exacerbate the confusion of what conservatism is and who conservatives are.
BTW- I would vote for a fiscally conservative pro-abortion Repub in half a second, but in some districts/states that would be totally unacceptable.
A case in point for a party being too inclusive is Arlen Specter. The GOP spent millions of dollars and circled the wagons around Specter during the 2004 primary to ensure that he defeated Pat Toomey because Specter was the "electable" Republican – without him the GOP might have lost its majority! 4 years later Specter is so ideologically divided from the party that fought so strenuously to keep him in office that he has switched parties and accumulated a 93% party-line voting record with his fellow Democrats. At some point, it's not enough to have a bunch of people with the same letter after their name – they have to prove their value as an asset. That's not to say that no compromise should be made, but you have to analyze the return on your investment (of donor dollars as well as votes). Sometimes you need to prune your worst performing investments because they are tying up your money and racking up enormous opportunity costs. That moment may well have arrived for the Republican party.
>They don't have to be ideologically pure, but is it really too much to ask for a certain basic standard to be met before the GOP will burn funds on their behalf? Is that really too much to ask?
jdh: I’m trying to move this discussion beyond word games into reality. What’s the practical difference between "ideology” and “basic standards”? All you’ve done is substitute one phrase for another. So supporting life is a “basic standard” instead of an “ideology”; a strict adherence to the second amendment is a “basic standard” instead of an ideology.
You’re still arguing that every Republican candidate must be a Sam Johnson, or he/she doesn’t deserve our support. This is nonsensical. Sam can’t win in NYC. Instead of a 30% Republican conservative we get a 100% Democrat liberal, who elects Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House, who sets the national legislative agenda.
In Congress, it’s the House and Senate Leadership that sets the agenda; these are the individuals who — once elected by their constituents — we need to support and help get elevated to leadership positions. There are enough Republicans who can get elected with strong conservative stands to provide an adequate base of acceptable candidates. This is where the real power struggle takes place. Let the moderate and liberal Republicans get elected in moderate and liberal districts to give the Republicans enough people to run the House and Senate, just like the Dems used conservative Democrats to keep Pelosi in power.
This is how you actually ‘do politics’ in the United States. Pretending it isn’t this way simply leads to defeat.
And by the way, discussing Congress has nothing to do with nominating a candidate for President. That’s a product of the primary process which the Republican Party in several states stupidly made an “open primary”, allowing liberal Democrats to help nominate a losing candidate for us. Close that system, and McCain wouldn’t have gotten the nomination.
Once again, we need to decide if we actually want to win elections, or announce our ideological purity. There is absolutely nothing wrong with supporting moderate, even liberal Republican candidates in districts that will not elect conservative Republican candidates, if the end result is to place institutional power in the hands of the Republican Party.
The practical calculation in American politics is “Democrat” or “Republican”, not “Liberal” or “Conservative”. It’s what the preponderance of the party is, not what individual congressmen are, that matters. Electing a handful of conservative Democrats helps the Libs retain institutional power in the House and Senate. The same is true of the opposite.
It’s time we played the political game with it’s actual rules, instead of the ones we wish it had.
PEJ: "…You’re still arguing that every Republican candidate must be a Sam Johnson…"
No sir, I'm arguing for candidates meeting a basic standard that would encompass different conservative points of view, but draw the line and force the Specter's to either run as the democrats they are, or run as independants.
If a republican is going to vote with the opposition party, what have you gained? Clearly, running a RINO has not worked out for us. Specter is a prime example of what you get with your tolerance: an unreliable (R) that the party can't control. You are arguing for more Specters based on an over-hyped sense of "reality".
We have tried your distorted "reality". We have *rarely* tried running as solid conservatives and when we did, we had 8 years of Reagan. The last time we tried your "reality", we ran McCain (a moderate/tolerant RINO).
I would argue that it is your distorted view of "reality" that has given us a socialist POTUS and a liberal congress. How's that working out for you?
In terms of procedural politics you're absolutely right. However, you said:
It’s what the preponderance of the party is, not what individual congressmen are, that matters.
The problem that Republicans seem to have is that the preponderance of the party as it exists today tends toward liberal ideology, not conservative ideology. They just tend less toward liberal ideology than Democrats. It's difficult to muster enthusiasm for electing a party not because it is better than the other, but rather because it is less bad.
Patrick:
Specter is a perfect point to illustrate my case. As distasteful as it was to support him over a conservative challenger, his re-election preserved the Republican majority in the Senate for the next two years. If you look at what Pennsylvania did in 2006-beyond, you’ll see bona-fide Conservative candidates (like Santorum) going down in defeat.
The fact is, Pennsylvania was becoming more Liberal. Supporting new, Santorum-like candidates for office in Pennsylvania insures a Democrat victory. Run Santorum in Texas, and he wins easily.
So, with Specter we keep control of the Senate, but have a boil on our ass. But at least Harry Reid is not the Leader, who is a cancer, not a boil.
Congressional politics is local, not national That’s the unique terrain each battle is fought on. Find the best candidate who can win in each locale. Sometimes this means a Sam Johnson. Other times it means an Arlen Specter.
Then, collectively as a people, work to educate the public about the wisdom of conservative principles (as the Tea Party movement is), and in doing so pave the terrain for a 40% conservative to be elected in a liberal district instead of a 20% conservative.
Look at the big picture and the long term, and examine it from the perspective of how things actually work instead of how we wish they would be.
And we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that people will automatically understand that conservatism is always ‘best’, so all we need to do is nominate conservative candidates for office. The fact is, most people are apolitical, and selfish. They are more naturally attracted to easy options using other people’s money than to conservative values.
In highly liberal districts or states, there needs to be a real education process to turn people’s attitudes around. In one sense, the Tea party movement is doing this, which will pave the way for more fiscally conservative candidates. But this doesn’t automatically mean that these people will support life and the second amendment as well.
So we elect the fiscally conservative Republican, and continue to work on educating the people about other conservative principles so they will demand these same values from their congressmen and senators. We don’t not support the fiscally conservative Republicans because they aren’t pro-life (or the pro-life Republican who is for gun control) because they aren’t ‘conservative enough’, and instead elect someone against all our interests [or a conservative Democrat who helps Pelosi remain in power].
We’ve got to stop complaining about the things we don’t like, and begin to focus on how to actually win elections to pursue as much of our agenda as we can in 2010; using this as a base to pursue more of that agenda in 2012.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
jdh,
There are districts (and there will be many, many more after the White House-directed 2010 US census) where a Republican running as a "real conservative" will never get elected. Phil believes it is better to have an Arlen Specter Republican in those districts than a Nancy Pelosi or Pete Stark Democrat. In that sense, in terms of the procedural consolidation of political power in congress, he is right. Ideally, these Republicans would represent the minority within the party and be used when procedurally expedient by the majority Republicans. It is when the wild card Republicans in the Democratic districts begin running the party that the process breaks down.
Every time I write a message a new one pops up in the time it took me to type it.
>I'm arguing for candidates meeting a basic standard that would encompass different conservative points of view …
*** Please precisely delineate these “basic standards”, and tell me how they differ from holding a “basic ideology”? They are the same things, just using different words.
>draw the line and force the Specter's to either run as the democrats they are, or run as independants.
*** And elevate harry Reid to leadership in 2004 instead of 2006. And exactly how does that help the conservative cause?
>If a republican is going to vote with the opposition party, what have you gained?
*** We’ve got to move beyond platitudes. Specter, as liberal as he was, didn’t vote liberal on every matter. But assume that he did. His election (unlike Santorum’s defeat) kept the Republicans in power. Are you saying there is no difference between Harry Reid’s running of the senate and a Republican leader?
>Clearly, running a RINO has not worked out for us.
*** Except for that little thing about retaining control of the Senate, where power is actually exercised.
>Specter is a prime example of what you get with your tolerance: an unreliable (R) that the party can't control. You are arguing for more Specters based on an over-hyped sense of "reality".
*** Here’s the ‘reality” of Pennsylvania. Specter is still in power, and Santorum isn’t. But at least we can all feel good about knowing that Santorum is a highly principled man who couldn’t get re-elected in a liberal state, so we lose the seat to a fanatical liberal. And this advances conservative political power how?
>We have tried your distorted "reality". We have *rarely* tried running as solid conservatives and when we did, we had 8 years of Reagan. The last time we tried your "reality", we ran McCain (a moderate/tolerant RINO).
*** You again mix nominating a president with electing a Congressman. Except for the fact that both people are elected, neither of these two processes have anything in common.
>I would argue that it is your distorted view of "reality" that has given us a socialist POTUS and a liberal congress. How's that working out for you?
*** Rick Santorum. Please explain how his defeat in Pennsylvania helped protect a Republican congress and promoted conservatism?
And once again, please take note that running for President is fundamentally different than running for Congress.
Phil,
Like I said, you're absolutely right from a procedural perspective, which I was trying to demonstrate in my post #11. In some districts running a true conservative or even a moderate conservative will not fly – the district's values aren't conservative and the constituents don't want a representative who doesn't reflect their values. But like I said before, the problem the Republicans run into is that the "fringe" Republicans like Specter don't end up being the useful idiots like the "conservative" Democrats in Pelosi's congress – they end up as committee chairpersons, policy developers, and influential power brokers. While Pelosi will appoint and then stand by Charles Rangel, John Murtha, Henry Waxman, and other dyed-in-the-wool party faithful and only call on the blue dogs when they serve some sinister purpose, a Republican congress is more likely to have the patients running the asylum while the dyed-in-the-wool party faithful are treated as the useful idiots. That's where ideology becomes important – when it starts to fundamentally change the complexion of the party.
Dammit Phil, you've done it again :)
> the problem the Republicans run into is that the "fringe" Republicans like Specter don't end up being the useful idiots like the "conservative" Democrats in Pelosi's congress – they end up as committee chairpersons, policy developers, and influential power brokers. While Pelosi will appoint and then stand by Charles Rangel, John Murtha, Henry Waxman, and other dyed-in-the-wool party faithful and only call on the blue dogs when they serve some sinister purpose, a Republican congress is more likely to have the patients running the asylum while the dyed-in-the-wool party faithful are treated as the useful idiots. That's where ideology becomes important – when it starts to fundamentally change the complexion of the party.
*** This is a great analysis. It’s where one of the real problems lie. But it isn’t Steele’s job to solve this problem (the subject of the original article is the RNC). Steele’s job is to get people elected.
Once in power, the Republican leaders need to grow some stones and enforce party discipline, which would be a reflection of their (the leaders) conservative values. I agree completely that this has been a problem that needs attention. It’s just not the subject of the article, which disputed the practical, political wisdom of running candidates for office who can actually get elected in the districts they represent.
Patrick: I know! It's hard to keep track of the flow of the discussion at times.
I don't think you and I are too far apart, and as I just said, I think you've put your finger on exactly the point that needs to be addressed once the republicans regain power.
But first, they need to win elections. And like I've been saying, thse elections take place in the real world.
Phil,
I suppose you're right. However, I do think Steele as the party chief should set the ideological tone for the party generally so that it is clear who represents the majority position and who represents the minority position within the party (and consequently who is qualified for party leadership and who is not).
>I do think Steele as the party chief should set the ideological tone for the party generally so that it is clear who represents the majority position and who represents the minority position within the party (and consequently who is qualified for party leadership and who is not).
*** The problem with this is, Steele is judged on performance: how many people did he get elected? If he's in charge of party philosophy too, then getting elected becomes the philosophy.
The party philosophy is the accumulation of all the individual congressional philosophies. It cannot be imposed. It must evolve.
Tea Parties are helping to crystalize the philosophical debate in this country about fiscal conservatism. Groups like Arizona Right to Life are helping change public attitudes on abortion. Let these groups continue to drive public philosophy, which will change the districts' ideological profile, which will bring new candidates into the race.
It's a process (often a long one), not a dicate from above. This is why so many people complain instead of act. They want their philosophy to be represented NOW! But sometimes you need to build toward acceptance of that philosophy.
Those who ignore the pragmatics of American politics will not succeed.
Ladies and Gents:
The discussion above explains quite well why I'm not longer eager to be a card-carrying Republican. But allow me to offer a bit of history of my path.
When I registered to vote at 18, though my parents had never been vigorous political activists, I registered as a Democrat due to one parent being vigorously irritated routinely by the Republicans. About three years later, prior to the 1996 election, I met a fellow who had recently completed a term as a Representative in the Iowa House. After he showed me the respective party platforms of the Republican and Democratic parties, I decided I could not, in good conscience, maintain any form of membership in the Democratic Party, so I changed parties.
I've discerned since that this move, while not precisely uncommon, is somewhat unusual, as I've come to understand that most Catholics are Democrats. How that's workable is beyond me, but I'll get back to that in a moment.
If you'll remember, '96 was the year that the Republicans were pushing the Contract with America, a set of ideas that I still think would work wonders for America's soul.
Over the succeeding four years, I watched the Party's actions as closely as possible; difficult because I was finishing college and beginning a career in the military overseas. I can honestly say though, what I saw from our elected representatives wasn't terribly impressive. It seemed as though every time I looked, the Republicans were failing to accomplish anything at all that I sought, primarily because they didn't seem willing to defend their principles rigorously, nor take their case to the People of America. They seemed to merely allow the Democrats and Pres Clinton to run circles around them.
By 2000, I decided to become non-partisan in Nebraska; being a Republican didn't seem to mean anything worthwhile. I changed it back to Republican in 2004, so I'd have at least a vague say in the primary season, even though Nebraska doesn't precisely run the board on much of anything.
Ultimately, I'm only registered as a Republican because I find the Democratic view to be unconscionable, but I'm forced to tolerate a great deal of nonsense if I intend to have any voice at all.
If Chmn Steele decides he's willing to simply abandon everything that I or others actually believe though, I may look elsewhere. Or I may simply neglect to vote. After hearing so much about a near moral obligation to vote from Boy Scouting and/or Church leadership, I never thought I'd say that, but I have to question whether having any voice at all has any impact worth having if the Party doesn't wish to acknowledge my right to hold particular beliefs.
In these past 13 years or so, I've seen very little reason to believe that either Party, Republican or Democrat, truly has any concern at all for the will of the People or any regard for Truth. Chmn Steele's perspective suggests to me that We, the People, have been summarily abandoned by a quietly bipartisan oligarchy that has flagrant contempt for the People.
I'll grant that I'm thoroughly disappointed with the actions–or lack thereof–of the USCCB, especially with regard to engaging the populace and Conservative movement, but I might point out that the Republicans haven't precisely demonstrated any reason why I should have confidence in them either.
BTW, I was willing to forgive the budget mess under Bush; we needed to do something about the nation's security. I've been quite disgusted with how that's been handled, but I can't blame the former Administration for doing what they felt needed to be done.
Ultimately, if either party ever intends to earn my willing vote, they'll need to demonstrate a distinct interest in what I consider to be Truth and Justice. If not, I may wind up changing parties throughout my life depending on precisely who demonstrates the closest frame of mind to what I think is worthy.
It's my greatest hope that the Catholic episcopate of the US will develop a backbone and hold Catholics accountable to what their Church actually teaches, not merely what they want to make believe. If that happens, both parties may be in for a major surprise.
I can hope for that, but it'd be nice to see the Republicans demonstrate a set of worthwhile values, whether the People rise up and demand their rights, or not.
PS. If the Republican Party is struggling with these issues so much, perhaps instead of circling the wagons around half-hearted candidates, maybe the Party ought to take a hint from a few of their own members:
I saw a newscast a few months ago that commented how 3-4 Republican Congressmen planned to take a road trip over the summer recess to recruit people and explain the Republican ideal more thoroughly.
If the Party as a whole had done that kind of outreach to most of us that wish to actually think for ourselves more, the elections of the past few years might've run differently.
As it is, we're tired of hearing about how we need to compromise.
Do you not understand that "compromise" with the Left typically means "capitulation", while they offer a tacit promise of something they'll improve upon later?
Why should we willingly tolerate being ignored when every workable poll I've heard of suggests that America is thoroughly disgusted with liberal arrogance?
jflare29:
This is precisely why the radical liberals control both the Senate and the House, and to a large extent explains how Obama was elected.
As long as we pretend that the American political system is based on ideologies rather than parties, we'll lose elections. The Democrats are very happy to have some token conservatives elected to office so Nancy and Harry can exercise real power.
We, on the other hand, want to pretend that elections are first and foremost about getting the right ideologically-correct candidate to run for office.
It's why we lose, and they win.
But, we can at least feel good about ourselves knowing that we care enough about protecting the unborn to insist that only pro-life congressional candidates be approved by the Republican Party. Just don't focus on the fact that when they lose and a rabid pro-abort congressman assumes that office, not only do Nancy and Harry continue to exercise legislative power, we’ve traded a Rudy Giuliani pro-choice congressman for a Pete Stark “let’s aggressively kill as many as we can” congressman. Since neither Rudy nor Stark are pro-life, it’s all the same. Right?
Let’s all keep pretending that the American political system — where power actually lies and is exercised — doesn’t really operate this way. So, in a fit of pique we can withdraw from politics or vote third party to show how ideologically pure we are, because if we can’t have it all now, it’s not worth fighting for according to the rules of the actual game.
Let’s just substitute our own rules and call everything we don’t like “compromise” and a sell-out. After all, isn’t our self-esteem more important than actually doing something within the existing rules of the existing system to advance as much of our interests each year as we can, while working to educate the general public to demand more of our principles for those they elect to office?
It’s just too complicated, and not a lot of fun to act this way. So instead, we’ll just declare moral victory, withdraw from real politics, let more real babies really die, and call everyone who actually tries to win within the existing rules a sell-out or “compromiser”.
Steele has no business being chair of the RNC. He clearly is not the sort of ideologically consistent Republican that the RNC needs. He is indeed working from what should now be a very out of date playbook that is all about putting together coalitions of ideologically dissimilar groups.
The Republican Party has an opportunity today to transform itself into a coherent, ideologically-driven party, a true party of the Right, and no major American party has ever been able to do this. As a party of the Right, the Republicans need to determine precisely how much disagreement with conservative positions will be tolerated, and the answer must be: not much. The party needs to work out a list of basic doctrines that must be subscribed to by any party operative, official, or candidate who wants to work under the Republican label,much less have access to any Republican logistical support. These principles need to include positions on gun control, abortion, gay marriage, religion, evolution, immigration, foreign policy, and big government that will distinguish Republicans plainly from liberals of any sort. And no moderates need apply either. If Republicans cannot win particular constituencies with a hard Right program, then so be it.
Just remember, at least 60% of the American public, according to a mid-summer Battleground Poll (which parallels Gallup and other polls), considers itself to be "conservative." If these Americans find a true conservative party to support, Republicans could find that permanent voting majority that party strategists have fantasized about for decades.
Just another thought. There are still many Americans who are uncomfortable with the notion of holding a very clearly specified ideology because they learned somewhere that ideological politics is to be avoided. This belief should be challenged by conservatives. I think a genuinely conservative Republican Party would appeal to many Americans. I envision it as something like a European style Christian Right party, with a strong evangelical base, but still having enough room for non-evangelical conservatives. Yes, I know people say that American politics is so unlike that of Europe that such a party would not work. However, the alternative is a succession of compromising big-tent people like Steele, and that should be an unacceptable future.
>If Republicans cannot win particular constituencies with a hard Right program, then so be it.
*** Nancy and Harry and the rest of the Democrats, who use conservative Democrats to keep the Liberal leadership in power, thank you.
> I know people say that American politics is so unlike that of Europe that such a party would not work.
*** These are the people who win elections because they understand that we have a party system based on a Representative Republic with set terms of office, not a parliamentary system based on political ideologies where no confidence votes can topple a government.
Wishing Amewrical behaved like Europe ignore how American politics is actually structured and functions. If you want to advance your interests, you have to first acknowledge and understand the rules of the system in which power is acquired and used. Not wish we had a different system of government.
Maybe I've got this all wrong. All I need to do is wish that politics in the US was different, and then act upon those beliefs.
Here goes.
I wish the mainstream media was conservative, that people put the interests of other in front of their own venal interests, that bad people were easily identifiable, and that politics rewarded people of good heart.
Now that I've said this is how things ought to be, I will only support candidates who are ideologically purew, demonstrably moral, interested in the welfare of the country, and since I now want the media to be fair and objective, I know their message will get out and we will win all the elections we enter.
There. Things are on the right path now. Pelosi, Reid and Obama's days are clearly numbered.
Mr. Jackson,
You're comments explain rather graphically why most of us have no interest in being actively involved in either party and why radical leftist persons currently hold power in America.
While it is true that American politics have long been, in daily practice, a matter of party line votes, it's also true that both parties and the nation have always required spiritual and ideological renewal at the hands of the People. If a party does not wish to honor the wishes of the populace, you can rest assured that the Party will die.
Again, every poll I've heard of suggests that a more conservative frame of mind is beginning to take hold in America. If Chairman Steele doesn't wish to ackowledge the will of the vast majority of America, you can rest assured that the Republican Party will continue to flag.
If you wish to declare that we've accomplished little by being ideologically particular, I'll point out that you've accomplished even less by being ideologically relaxed.
Why should anyone waste time on you if you won't demonstrate any particular moral backbone?
Sorry, I'm late to the party.
I have enjoyed reading the back-and-forth, but I think some essential elements are being missed (or maybe, I missed someone saying them).
1) the Left has no problem demanding ideological purity (just ask Joe Liebermann, Bill Cosby, Camille Paglia, etc).
2) the Left is never content with the status quo in terms of advancing their ideology. They will do anything, pretend to be anything, and they will say anything, in order to bring their vision of America into being.
3) the Left defines the Right. Or shall I say, the Left is allowed to define the Right. I know I wouldn't vote for a conservative based on what leftists say about them. And leftists have a loud megaphone, while conservatives barely advance a whimper.
4) Conservative ideas win elections when conservative ideas are communicated absent the pollution of the leftist filter. This is because the huge majority of Americans live conservative lifestyles, even when they describe themselves as democrats or liberals.
5) Leftists play to win, conservatives play by the rules.
6) Why do conservatives have to continually compromise with leftists? Why is that good? Consensus is defined as leftists getting their way.
7) There's a lot at stake. This nation is teetering on the brink of oblivion thanks to leftists. We don't have decades of incrementalism available to us.
I solicit all of your thoughts on these observations.
Jflare29
>You're comments explain rather graphically why most of us have no interest in being actively involved in either party and why radical leftist persons currently hold power in America.
*** Exactly. They’ll settle for half of their ideological agenda and all the power, while we want all our agenda and end up with none of the power.
This isn’t a game. It’s about the acquisition and exercise of political power. Refusing to accept the reality of the way power is gained and used relegates you to the morally superior, but politically impotent class. And exactly how does this protect the unborn?
>While it is true that American politics have long been, in daily practice, a matter of party line votes, it's also true that both parties and the nation have always required spiritual and ideological renewal at the hands of the People.
** BS. The Democrats routinely populate their leadership — which actually has the power — with far Left radicals that don’t reflect the general population. They did this in 2006, and won re-election in 2008. Your absolutes about American politics are simplistic, uninformed, and just plain wrong.
If a party does not wish to honor the wishes of the populace, you can rest assured that the Party will die.
*** Yes, eventually. In the meantime it can implement a lot of programs that kill people (old people and babies), and bankrupt the country. Just a minor detail in an otherwise ideological pure universe.
>Again, every poll I've heard of suggests that a more conservative frame of mind is beginning to take hold in America. If Chairman Steele doesn't wish to ackowledge the will of the vast majority of America, you can rest assured that the Republican Party will continue to flag.
*** It’s like talking to a tree. First, “conservative” in New England means something different than “conservative” in Texas. Second, if you need a half dozen congressional seats in New England to produce a Republican majority to implement programs that are more conservative than what the Dems normally offer, running Sam Johnson in Massachusetts won’t work.
You continue to speak in global platitudes without once recognizing that congressional races are on a district basis. Oh, I forgot. You did. You said you’d rather lose than win. (“If Republicans cannot win particular constituencies with a hard Right program, then so be it. “) Once again, Nancy and Harry and the rest of the Democrats, who use conservative Democrats to keep the Liberal leadership in power, thank you.
>If you wish to declare I'll point out that you've accomplished even less by being ideologically relaxed.
*** I probably write more articles and responses than anyone else at IC. Why is it necessary to assign something to me I’ve never said (“that we've accomplished little by being ideologically particular”) to refute me? I’ve said what I’ve always said. You don’t run a hard line conservative in a liberal district and expect to win. You do what the Dems do: put someone in who is acceptable to that group, use them to create a majority in Congress to exercise power, and work in the intervening months to educate the people so you’ll get more of your agenda through the next election.
If you want to treat American politics like a cartoon, you’re going to lose. Personally, I’d rather have half my agenda represented in Washington than none of it. But that’s just me. You can be happy with having none of it represented, and feeling good about yourself for not supporting a pro-life fiscal conservative because he wasn’t strong enough on the second amendment, so a rabid pro-abort, spendthrift, anti-Second Amendment liberal could take his place in Congress.
>Why should anyone waste time on you if you won't demonstrate any particular moral backbone?
*** Maybe because I just told you how to actually implement your agenda in the real world, which requires both time and a modicum of intelligence as well as an understanding of the system of American politics, instead of suggesting that we should just be good ideologically correct losers (“If Republicans cannot win particular constituencies with a hard Right program, then so be it. “)
Mountain Man:
1) the Left has no problem demanding ideological purity (just ask Joe Liebermann … etc).
*** No. They will nominate anyone (look at the Blue Dogs). Once in office, you are correct. Their leadership demands ideological purity. They recognize that power resides in the leadership, that the leadership depends on having a majority, and that you need to actually win elections to get the majority.
6) Why do conservatives have to continually compromise with leftists? Why is that good? Consensus is defined as leftists getting their way.
*** No one said “Conservatives” as a whole need to compromise their principles. The issue is, can a “Hard” (ideologically pure) conservative win in a liberal district? No. So should we just be happy with defeat as jflare29 suggests, or maybe play the political game by its actual rules and take power away from the radicals?
Phil,
1) I did not say that the Left always demands ideological purity, I just observed that they have no problem doing so.
2) I firmly believe that a conservative can win anywhere there are not a majority of left-wing kooks. It just so happens that the left-wing kooks control the environment in a number of key spots, and because they embrace win-at-all-costs with religous zealotry, they happen to win the day at the moment.
They are few in number, however. And when unmasked, they run like roaches when the lights are turned on (of course, thowing grenades as they run). Leftists are like sand people, "…easily startled but they will soon be back and in greater numbers…" (my apologies to Star Wars fans).
I do not believe we should somehow be happy in defeat. That's like the band nerd being happy he was asked to the jock's birthday party (even if by accident). The band nerd try to buddy up to the jock, and gain nothing but the contempt of the jock.
We act like band nerds in that we somehow, deep down, don't really believe that conservatism is is for everybody. We want to hide what we believe for fear of offending someone. We don't want to be thought of as racist, as hate mongers, as not caring for the poor. We seem to believe the caricature presented by the opposition.
But we are not band nerds. We are not second or third class intellectuals. We are not filled with hate, we are not bigots. We are RIGHT. We have the correct answers, we have the logical solutions, we have the truth.
And the thing is, our adversaries KNOW THIS. That's why they work overtime to perpetuate myths. That's why they have endeavored for decades to control the information brokers. That's why they never stop trying to hide their true beliefs. They fight with emotion and buzz words, with the politics of personal destruction, with bigotry and intolerance that far exceed what they accuse us of.
But their facade is a thin veneer, one that is easily crumbled by conservatives who not only hold fast to their beliefs, but can quickly and glibly unmask the pretenders that seek to destroy them.
Phil, you know as well as I do that leftists cannot stand being questioned, they cannot bear up under scrutiny. They will shed their cleverly made up personas very quickly when backed into a corner.
They cannot comprehend why there are so many conservative books on the NYT best seller list. They still haven't figured out Sarah Palin. After all this time, the TEA party gatherings still elude them. You might say they actually know what all this is about, but I believe that they just don't get it.
They are so convinced of their own intellectual and philosophical superiority that there in no room in their thinking for alternatives. They are so used to being unchallenged in their pronouncements that succinct, cogent rebuttals flabbergast them. They are shallow people, shallow thinkers, they are quintessential products of our public school system.
What we have to do is put the pressure on, and not let up. Push back twice as hard. Show no mercy when it comes to the defending the truth against liars. Attack the flimsy logic, point out the many and complete failures of their ways of thinking.
I feel like there is a push back developing out there. Conservatives are becoming emboldened as they stand up for their beliefs. Leftists and vacillating Republicans are feeling the heat like they never have. And their emotional outbursts are more and more in the public eye than they ever have been.
They used to sound so thoughtful and tolerant as they expounded upon their beautiful assessments of things. Now, they are reduced to a single word: "Racists." That is not resonating with the average Joe. The sleeping giant is awakening.
There is revolution (in the electoral sense) on the near horizon. I think this is just the right time to push the hard core conservative principles. We are on the right side, and we have never been closer to victory.
We aren't nit-picking individual circumstances or use cases, just use your gut…
As a general principle, do you believe the government that governs best, governs least?
As a general principle, do you believe in a strong national defense?
As a general principal, do you prefer to promote self-sufficiency or nanny-state entitlement programs?
As a general principal, do you prefer a judiciary that considers the framers original intent or one that believes the Constitution is a living document?
Is it better to grow the national deficit or shrink it?
Higher taxes or lower?
Prefer and promote life over death if a choice is available?
Free-market capitalism or increased regulation?
If you consider yourself conservative, this should make some sense to you. If it does not, then perhaps you are more suited to be an independant or democrat.
We are NOT talking about a narrow, strict, litmus test. If you still want to claim this boxes you into a narrow "ideology", then you are being intellectually dishonest as there is room for differing viewpoints within those principles. If you are not intellectually dishonest, you would define the opposite of those principals as a democrat.
So, either we can reasonably and clearly delineate between conservatives and liberals, or we can have your "anything goes" free-for-all where the terms "Republican" and "Democrat" are meaningless and the margins will remain razor thin.
I can understand that you want control over the speakerships to control legislation; however, your squishy RINO's don't seem to advance the conservative agenda when we have the advantage. The most damaging legislation in recent history was passed WITH THE VOTES OF YOUR RINO's. It remains to be seen if the RINO's will help pass the health-care abomination and/or cap & trade. Based on recent history, should we be surprised if they do?
So again, I don't see how we gain by promoting and supporting RINO's when it *never* seems to pay off when all is said and done.
You know what? I'm beating a dead horse. Your way has been tried time and again with the same disappointing results. I admire your optimisim that keeps saying, "next time it will be different."
Good luck with that. You can have the last word. I'm done.
Mr. Jackson,
Recreating a vigorous, worthwhile party won't be easy by any stretch and I don't believe we'll find any "silver bullet" candidates to solve all problems in a heartbeat.
And by the way, I've voted in every election since 1992; mostly for Republicans, as they come closest to ideals they actually believe. And, while not active in party politics at all, I've still advocated amongst friends and others for the policies that one Republican or another has proposed.
…And I've had my butt handed to me on a silver platter repeatedly for the trouble!!
Ever since I began voting, I've watched Democrats and liberals stomp gleefully all over Republican, Conservative, and Catholic ideals. Republican leadership seems to accept it all and willingly settle for a minor concession here or there. Even with Republicans numerically in power, the Democrats have generally run the board.
Why should I offer anything for a party that demonstrates no passion? Why should I get excited in the Party doesn't seem to believe it's own ideas?
We're not electing people to public office merely to hold and wield power. We're not peasants petitioning the king for a small favor. We're taxpaying citizens who hire candidates to office for the specific purpose of enacting and/or legislating policy. Policy that that fits our beliefs and attitudes as closely as possible.
That inherently involves ideology!
As far as liberal districts go, why are you not fighting for ground? Why not challenge the populace to reconsider their views? The Democrats frequently win because they seem to do this constantly? Why not challenge local leadership to start a genuine debate and hold the other side accountable to it's reasoning?
Why are Republicans so anemic? Does the Party platform that attracted me in '96 mean anything? Or is that merely a convenient tool to seduce suckers like me who want to believe in something?
You know, some years ago, my beloved Nebraska Cornhuskers suffered a needless loss to Arizona State. Essentially, Arizona State showed up ready for a fight; we didn't.
Within a few years, the Cornhuskers surprised the nation by defeating Miami in the Orange Bowl for the National Championship. They had PASSION!
If Republicans want to win, they need to provoke everyone in the nation to honest debate and challenge various preconceived notions. They need to be PASSIONATE about it!
If Chmn Steele and Party leadership decide they want to go a liberalized route, America will suffer.
As it has before.
It's just that simple.
Interesting, perhaps relevant quotation:
"Politics the the art of the possible."
That means compromise, and people hate to compromise. If they didn't hate it, it wouldn't be compromise. So jdh hates the idea of compromise, and does Dr. J. Except Dr. J hates the idea of being ineffectual even more.
Nothing unusual here.
ruminator,
List three things in the last 6 months on which leftists have compromised with conservatives.
MM
> I did not say that the Left always demands ideological purity, I just observed that they have no problem doing so.
*** Ok.
>They are few in number, however. And when unmasked, they run like roaches when the lights are turned on (of course, thowing grenades as they run).
*** Yeah, but unmasking them takes heroic measures. ACORN has been indicted in 19 states for voter fraud extending back several years. That in itself wasn’t enough to bring them down. It took something even more egregious to shed the light. This is compared to simple accusations about the Right, which is more than sufficient in the eyes of the press to start a lynch mob.
I say this only to reiterate that this is the terrain in which we must advance our agenda. Being morally correct, having the Truth on our side, in itself doesn’t give us political power. Without that power, we cannot implement any of our agenda.
Those (not you) who pretend otherwise, who think that all we need to do is act ideologically correct, are giving us a recipe for feeling good about our defeat.
>There is revolution (in the electoral sense) on the near horizon. I think this is just the right time to push the hard core conservative principles. We are on the right side, and we have never been closer to victory.
*** The Tea Parties have paved the way for allowing stronger conservative candidates to win in moderate/liberal districts. [Remember, THIS is the issue on the table per the original article, not whether the Republicans as a whole should embrace conservatism]. We’re talking about whether it makes practical, political, tactical sense to insist that all Republican candidates adhere to the same ideology across the board. I reject the simple-minded notion that “If Republicans cannot win particular constituencies with a hard Right program, then so be it.“
Being morally pure and politically effective does not protect unborn life. Until someone explains to me how putting up a losing conservative candidate in a liberal district advances conservatism, I’ll keep this point of view. [And don’t tell me it’s to educate the people by giving them a loss. Education is what you do between elections to prepare the ground for victory.]
What I dislike are the people on our side who whine and complain instead of actually do the necessary things over time to advance our agenda. I dislike morally superior people who create a fantasy world with fantasy rules to excuse doing the real things in the real world to advance their agenda. And I particularly dislike these same people who would rather lose an election than advance any of their agenda [the election of one congressman does not advance an “agenda”; the election of enough congressmen to give Republicans actual power, who elect conservative leaders, does advance the agenda].
And, I’d rather protect/advance 30% of my agenda than none of it.
All of which relates directly to jdh’s facile string of straw man questions. Uh, yeah I prefer lower taxes and a strong defense, etc. Now please tell me how keeping the Democrats in control of Congress advances my agenda?”
Jdh says “I can understand that you want control over the speakerships to control legislation; however, your squishy RINO's don't seem to advance the conservative agenda when we have the advantage.”
So at last we have the first glimmer of recognition that we operate in the real world. The problem isn’t with the election of individual congressmen, it’s with the leadership.
So we have two issues here. First, is there any difference between a RINO leader of Congress and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? If you say “no difference”, you’re a fool. At a minimum, I’d rather have a RINO in power than a Far Left Zealot. Again, if you see no practical, pragmatic difference between the two, you live in an alternative reality. Or you’re just plain dishonest in your answer.
Preferring a RINO over a Far Left Zealot doesn’t mean you prefer a RINO, period. The individual members (voters) of the Republican party, through the dispensing or withholding of funds, can send messages to the Republican leadership. Movements like the Tea parties can too. These are some of the pragmatic ways real people push real agendas with sometimes reluctant leaders.
Speaking in false absolutes that things “*never* seems to pay off when all is said and done” is childish pique, not a real effort to really understand how to influence and change policy.
>You know what? I'm beating a dead horse. Your way has been tried time and again with the same disappointing results. I admire your optimisim that keeps saying, "next time it will be different." Good luck with that. You can have the last word. I'm done.
*** I didn’t put false quotes around words you never said, so I’d appreciate you extending the same courtesy to me. This is why the phony, morally-superior never really advance their cause. They spend too much time feeling sorry for themselves that the rest of the world doesn’t automatically embrace the same exact principles they do to the same degree they embrace them. They withdraw from politics instead of fight within the rules of the system. They give actual power to people opposed to their interests, but feel real good about themselves while really bad things happen in the real world because of their cartoon-like understanding of politics.
Meanwhile, more real babies die. But at least these people feel good about themselves.
Jflare29:
>Recreating a vigorous, worthwhile party won't be easy by any stretch and I don't believe we'll find any "silver bullet" candidates to solve all problems in a heartbeat.
*** Absolutely correct. This is real life politics in the real world. It takes time, repeated effort, and a true understanding of how things work to achieve success. Just ask the Democrats between 1994 and 2006.
>And I've had my butt handed to me on a silver platter repeatedly for the trouble!!
*** As have I for arguing that we need to act in accordance with how things actually work, instead of picking up our marbles and ceding power to the Left.
>Why should I offer anything for a party that demonstrates no passion? Why should I get excited in the Party doesn't seem to believe it's own ideas?
*** Because the alternative isn’t just a benign form or liberalism. It’s a radical Left wing agenda that’s being rammed down our throat by a veto-proof Senate. This isn’t an abstract discussion. It’s about the real world, where real things happen. Winning (and losing) elections have real consequences.
The US allied with Russia against Hitler in the 1940s. Why is it okay to support Stalin to defeat Hitler, but not okay to support a RINO in a particular district that a hard conservative can’t win, so we regain control of the House and Senate?
>We're not electing people to public office merely to hold and wield power.
*** That may not be your intention. But once in office, that’s exactly the power they have. And there’s nothing to stop them except the next election.
>We're not peasants petitioning the king for a small favor. We're taxpaying citizens who hire candidates to office for the specific purpose of enacting and/or legislating policy. Policy that that fits our beliefs and attitudes as closely as possible. That inherently involves ideology!
*** This is high school civics, not real world analysis. This may be what you think you are doing, but once elected the only power you have over an official is the next election. In between, he/she can do whatever they want.
Most congressmen want to get re-elected, so they will listen to their constituents … to a degree. But as the Blue Dogs show, they also get a lot of pressure from the leadership to vote a different way. And then there is vote swapping to protect people in swing districts, which helps insure a congressman’s re-election who seems to be supporting his constituent needs but really isn’t. And so on, and so on.
I’m really shocked that so many people commenting at the IC (on both the Right and Left) seem to have absolutely no understanding of how things actually work in this world. Instead, they fart out these ideological platitudes and whine and complain about how ideologically impure their representatives are, then either pick up their marbles and leave the fight, or just wallow in self pity.
If you want to actually succeed in the real world, educate yourself on how things actually work. Stop sloganeering and pretending you’re understanding anything.
>As far as liberal districts go, why are you not fighting for ground? Why not challenge the populace to reconsider their views?
*** Oh Jeez. Go back and read what I’ve written a number of times about preparing the ground between elections. Stop with these rhetorical questions that don’t address what I actually said.
By the way, to repeat once again, this “challenging” takes time. And in some districts (think Manhattan), you’re never going to persuade them. So you either cede that district to the Liberals forever, or you run a less-than-ideological Republican and pick a few seats off … the way the Democrats did … so they could control Congress …
>The Democrats frequently win because they seem to do this constantly? Why not challenge local leadership to start a genuine debate and hold the other side accountable to it's reasoning?
*** Good. Go to Manhattan and “challenge” them. Go to a district where 80% of the people are on some form of public welfare, and “challenge” them to understand that this attitude is wrong.
The fact is, there are some districts that are not winnable with a “hard” conservative message. Rudy Giuliani understood this, and was elected a Republican Mayor of NYC. To those who say ‘so what?’ compare his administration to David Dinkens. There are real differences between the two parties. In certain cases, even a moderate Republican is better than no Republican at all.
Once again, THIS is the subject of the original essay, and is what I’ve been writing about.
> Why are Republicans so anemic? Does the Party platform that attracted me in '96 mean anything? Or is that merely a convenient tool to seduce suckers like me who want to believe in something?
*** This is actually a very good question. You won’t like the answer, though. Platforms are for show. They can point to broad differences between the parties, but they aren’t prescriptions for action when every vote takes place. Congressmen vote their District’s interest, not their platform. If enough people in a District exert their power, they change their position (think the summer Town Meetings). This is what helps drive their decisions, not whether the RNC or DNC supported a particular philosophy at their last political convention.
>If Republicans want to win, they need to provoke everyone in the nation to honest debate and challenge various preconceived notions. They need to be PASSIONATE about it!
*** Once again, Truth is not sufficient to change minds (look at ACORN). Passion without a real understanding of how power is achieved and exercised won’t change anything. Some districts will not change their liberal (or conservative) values regardless of all the passion and education either side brings to the table.
Stop substituting desire (passion) for what it takes to actually be effective in promoting your agenda.
>If Chmn Steele and Party leadership decide they want to go a liberalized route, America will suffer.
*** Yeah, that’s the whole issue here. Steele wants to liberalize the entire Republican party. That’s all there is to this discussion.
Ruminator:
>So jdh hates the idea of compromise, and does Dr. J. Except Dr. J hates the idea of being ineffectual even more. Nothing unusual here.
*** Yeah, except you got it wrong again. I compromise on a lot of things, just like everyone else does. Compromise is part of life.
The issue here, however, is compromising on “principles”. I’m anti-abortion. I don’t compromise by supporting partial birth abortion, or by saying it’s okay to kill an unborn child if it’s 19 weeks old instead of 20 weeks.
What I also do is recognize that the House and Senate leadership set the political agenda. They can promote abortion policies, or block them. Electing Joe Shmo Republican from NYC who is pro choice actually helps prevent abortions if he gives us a Republican majority, which deposes Nancy or Harry.
This is how you advance your principles in the real world, instead of treating life like a cartoon.
Being morally pure and politically effective does not protect unborn life.
Should be "politically ineffective"
"…unmasking them takes heroic measures." Indeed, which is exactly why they were unmasked. It can be done. And interestingly, it was accomplished at the prodding of hard right people.
And, it is getting easier. One reason is probably because the media cannot control the message any more. Another is that we either are overestimating the power of the Left to control the world view of the average American, or we are underestimating how well the conservative message really reasonates.
The first few blows with your sledge hammer barely marks that concrete. But you keep hammering, and suddenly cracks appear, pieces fall off, and finally, you have a pile of dust. We are in the "pieces fall off" stage, but we act like we are in the "barely marks" stage.
"We’re talking about whether it makes practical, political, tactical sense to insist that all Republican candidates adhere to the same ideology across the board." Maybe some of us are, but I'm not. Ideology and principles are different. Ideology springs from principles. Principles come from worldview. Worldview comes from what we are exposed to, what makes sense to us, and what we are taught.
We are the change agents of what people are exposed to. We have to define conservatism and stop letting our enemies define it for us. Conservatism makes sense, and people need to be shown that.
"Until someone explains to me how putting up a losing conservative candidate in a liberal district advances conservatism…" I don't think I suggested that we should put up a loser. I suggested that we put up winners. But what good does it do to put up anyone at all if the electorate in a particular region is 80% leftist? Moderates, RINOs, and conservatives are going to lose that one.
But Phil, I think you're presenting a false choice. We don't have to win in a leftist district to win the argument. We don't have to win everywhere. We have to win wherever we can, at the same time laying the groundwork to win everywhere else. I don't think anyone on the national scene is thinking this way.
Remember, the Republicans had all three branches of government from 2000-2006. Do you recall a single substantive conservative item from our "list" that we could check off? We neither advanced nor protected 30% of our agenda during that period. If we couldn't do it then, what's the point?
There's got to be another way… That's why I say there is a sleeping giant awakening. It is d*mn encouraging. I think that this is the place to concentrate our energies, because it is a real groundswell amongst real people with real conviction. It is fueled by real outrage, and it shows no sign of letting up.
Mr. Jackson,
Throughout these posts, I have attempted to challenge you and Republican leadership to understand that you might attract a much larger audience to your cause if you'd bother to acknowledge what the Constitution actually allows any person to do. In return for my effort, I have received summary dismissal and evening a patronizing reference to my understanding of how America happens.
If you don't mind my asking, do you REALLY expect to accomplish anything this way?
If my understanding of what the Constitution allows doesn't exactly mirror your practiced understanding of how things have gone, shouldn't that itself suggest to you that maybe you need to reconsider your methods and intentions?
Seems to me that you're acting much like a number of rather liberal Catholic bishops: You insist that you've thought this through thoroughly and/or practiced it and your way is the only way it can be.
Do you not understand that this arrogance is precisely why people are not flocking to your door?
Don't you realize that this contempt for the average person is precisely why you can't accomplish anything?
You can say what you want about my understanding of politics in America, but I think it worth noting that millions of children have died regardless of whatever "gains" there are you think you've made.
I say again, sir, or for the first time, if you like:
I have voted Republican because I've literally had no workable alternative.
I've put up with heaps of intellectual and practical garbage from the party precisely because neither party will really listen to the American people.
Especially if your party platform is merely a document of platitudes, I cannot see that you believe in anything in particular, except for wielding power as you see fit.
May I remind you, sir, that the Constitution DOES allow for recall petition drives when the populace grows especially disgusted with our "representatives".
Even if it rarely happens, never forget that no citizen of this nation has any obligation at all to take orders from either party.
I guess I can give you this solace: Your party likely will continue to receive my reluctant vote unless the Democrats have a dramatic change of heart.
Be glad you haven't lost that completely.
>Throughout these posts, I have attempted to challenge you and Republican leadership to understand that you might attract a much larger audience to your cause if you'd bother to acknowledge what the Constitution actually allows any person to do. In return for my effort, I have received summary dismissal and evening a patronizing reference to my understanding of how America happens.
*** No you haven’t. Throughout these posts you (and others) have expressed your feelings about things. You haven’t once talked about how to actually implement a conservative agenda in the present American political system, other than to speak in platitudes.
You (and others) continue to speak about the dynamics of electing a president and electing a representative from an individual district, as if they are the same thing.
Repeatedly insisting that we need to support only strong conservative candidates isn’t an analysis. It’s a mantra. I told you that this doesn’t work in certain districts, and you repeat the mantra. I point out that electing some individual pro-choice representatives may actually take power away from the Hard Left, and you ignore that and repeat the mantra.
Whenever I ask for specifics (as in, how to actually implement your philosophy in light of the real way power is accumulated and exercised in America) I get platitudes. You say “They [candidates] don't have to be ideologically pure, but is it really too much to ask for a certain basic standard to be met before the GOP will burn funds on their behalf? Is that really too much to ask?” So ask you “Please precisely delineate these ‘basic standards’, and tell me how they differ from holding a ‘basic ideology’? They are the same things, just using different words.”
Your response? Nothing.
To you and others who simply say RINOs are bad, and that’s the extent of your analysis, Well, I’ve got a category for you. The WINOs [Winning Is Not (an) Option]. You whine about the lack of a conservative agenda, speak lovingly about the need to embrace conservative principles, and have absolutely no idea how to actually bring this about other than to repeat the phrase that Conservative principles are Best. You’re happy losing a district that could be turned away from Democrats and give Republicans actual power.
I have no affinity, or tolerance, for people who think that it’s morally acceptable to let babies die because they don’t want to do the things they actually need to do to take power away from Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. I have no affinity for people who profess to be ideologically pure but won’t actually take the real world into account, and allow the immoral to continue holding and exercising power.
> If you don't mind my asking, do you REALLY expect to accomplish anything this way?
*** Um, yeah. I expect to take back control of the House and Senate. Just a small detail, I know.
>If my understanding of what the Constitution allows doesn't exactly mirror your practiced understanding of how things have gone, shouldn't that itself suggest to you that maybe you need to reconsider your methods and intentions?
*** Or, as a possible alternative explanation, your “understanding” of the Constitution is shallow and one-dimensional, and maybe you should invest a little more time in understanding how this world actually functions before you design your own.
>Seems to me that you're acting much like a number of rather liberal Catholic bishops: You insist that you've thought this through thoroughly and/or practiced it and your way is the only way it can be.
*** Hardly. This is an entirely ignorant statement if you bother to access even a fraction of the articles I’ve written for IC. But once again it shows how willing you are to substitute what you want to believe for what really is (it’s so much easier just to feel something strongly than take the time to really explore an issue).
>Do you not understand that this arrogance is precisely why people are not flocking to your door?
*** I’m not interested in converting the terminally stupid. They are beyond help, whether they are on the Left or Right. What I am interested in doing is showing people who really care about an issue how to succeed in promoting your agenda, instead of simply feeling good about losing.
By the way, I don't assign individual people to categories. The treminally stupid do that for themselves by the way they think. Change the behavior, and the label no longer applies.
>Don't you realize that this contempt for the average person is precisely why you can't accomplish anything?
*** Son, take two seconds and access my website and read my bio. I’ve helped elect a Congressmen, helped on a foreign treaty, worked in Washington on capitol Hill for 3 years, and have more education in this matter than most people (both academic and real world from my 11 years as SVP of Government Affairs for a Trade Association). If you want to challenge my ability to advance my goals, then look at what I’ve actually done, instead of — once again — speaking in broad platitudes without any substance behind your comments.
>You can say what you want about my understanding of politics in America, but I think it worth noting that millions of children have died regardless of whatever "gains" there are you think you've made.
*** Only a fool, or someone who debates dishonestly, would say that there is no difference between Nancy Pelosi setting the abortion agenda in Congress and a Republican. And only a complete fool would say that because abortion is still legal in this country (thus, babies continue to die), there is no difference between Nancy as Speaker and a Republican.
As for how to actually end abortion in this country, you might want to read http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/25/what-kind-of-car-would-jesus-drive-to-take-his-girlfriend-to-an-abortion-clinic/
I know it's kinda long, but that's because it does more than continually re-state a platitude about abortion being bad. And when you finish that, you can go on to http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/13/the-true-nature-of-human-morality-a-response-to-the-critique-%e2%80%9cuniversal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe%e2%80%9d/, which attacks the platitudes of the Left that want to rationalize abortion.
>May I remind you, sir, that the Constitution DOES allow for recall petition drives when the populace grows especially disgusted with our "representatives".
*** And how’s that working out for you today? The Constitution allows the states themselves to call a Constitutional Convention. Neither option is likely. I didn’t say “impossible”, I just said highly unlikely.
The main difference between us is that I’m not factoring in petition recalls as a real world option any time in the near future, or even distant future. I’m looking for ways to take power away from Pelosi in 2010.
I’ll support a RINO in a weak district if it helps accomplish this aim. [This, once again, is the actual subject of the original article!] Meantime, you’ll keep spouting off about what is theoretically possible (as if that means its somehow a practical alternative), and wonder why Nancy is still in power in 2011.
Meanwhile more babies will die. But you’ll feel good about yourself.
jflare29,
You wrote: "…if you'd bother to acknowledge what the Constitution actually allows any person to do." Would you please explain this statement?
I ask you to do so because I don't see anything in the Constitution that allows any person to do anything.
[Phil]"We’re talking about whether it makes practical, political, tactical sense to insist that all Republican candidates adhere to the same ideology across the board."
[MM] Maybe some of us are, but I'm not. Ideology and principles are different. Ideology springs from principles. Principles come from worldview. Worldview comes from what we are exposed to, what makes sense to us, and what we are taught.
*** Yes! The Republican Party bureaucrats cannot define the party's ideology. That ideology comes from the people. The people will push the party, as the Looney Left has done with the Democrats.
But this is not the same thing as discussing the best tactics to win in a particular district! If a district is “moderate”, you need to educate the voters between elections to pave the way for a more principled conservative to win. You don’t just insist, as someone did, that you run Hard Right” candidates only, and if they lose, so be it.
So, as a step in a process, recognizing that the party with the most members has the most power, you do what you need to do to win individual elections in moderate and liberal districts — just like Nancy did when she ran “conservative” candidates in swing districts to preserve her Ultra Left power base in Congress.
Everything you said about defining what conservatism is, etc. is correct. It’s just not part of a discussion of tactics, which is what this article is all about.
Look. I know I’ve been brutal with some people here. But you’ve all got to stop mixing a philosophical discussion about why conservatism is best with a tactical debate about how to win swing districts. Yeah, the two issues are related in some ways, in that we don’t want to run a 100% Lib as a Republican. But why not settle for a 30% conservative in those districts, instead of insisting on all or nothing?
We are our own worst enemy at times. We preach and preen about ideology and “True Conservatism”, while refusing to actually fight to win elections because doing so somehow soils our purity.
Well folks, this is an impure world. If you insist on 100%, you get 0. The struggle is always to compromise (there’s that word) as little as possible to win a disputed district. But you’ve got to win before you can take the next step — pressuring the Republican Leadership to be more forceful in promoting conservatism.
Nothing is automatic. It’s always a struggle. But you’ve got to understand and accept the rules to have a chance at success.
The Democrats know this, which is why they hold power today. And they will continue to do so if we continue to substitute our wishes and feelings for effective political tactics.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
> We don't have to win in a leftist district to win the argument. We don't have to win everywhere. We have to win wherever we can, at the same time laying the groundwork to win everywhere else.
*** MM: Sorry, you are wrong. The Dems picked off Republican districts with their DINO [Democrats in Name Only] candidates. We need every seat we can get, now and to protect against future losses. It’s foolish to arbitrarily just give some districts away.
Nancy didn’t follow this advice. It’s why she’s the Speaker of the House.
Ideologues, Left and Right, often drastically oversimplify American politics. For example, many conservatives think that something called "the Left" wins Democratic congressional elections. Not quite. Democrats must do the usual thing and direct federal programs and various forms of aid to their districts or states. Ted Kennedy was not given support here in Massachusetts solely because he was a liberal. He did a great job in directing federal resources to the academic medical system, which translated into programs that led to thousands of people having jobs. When conservatives win regularly, they must do similar things, depending, of course, on who and what their constituencies are. Ideologues like to smear all of this as 'pork barrel' politics and 'interest group' politics, but, like it or not, it is how government really works. Even the most minimal political realism should suffice to show that, everywhere, at every point in history, holders of public office–no matter what kind of government system they were working in–exchanged benefits for support.
The kind of ideological politics most people on the Right or Left truly prefer does happen, but it is a rupture in the normal flow of benefits and supports. It may shift the system, or, for truly radical movements, ultimately shater it. I'm suggesting that what conservatives really need in the US now, given that the majority of voters are, in some sense, 'conservative,' seize the opportunity to produce one of those historic great political transformations. I'm saying that conservatives should think big. I've been reading James Kalb's "The Tyranny of Liberalism" (ISI, 2007) and find it quite bracing. Kalb makes a case that the American system has been focused far too much on 'individual freedom' and material well-being. He calls for a strong traditionalist political movement that will work to get people to change some of their most basic values. He may be utopian, but conservatives need to think in terms of persuading many millions of people to give up on the idea of the federal government as problem-solver. I recall hearing Harvey Mansfield, Jr. say that conservative think-tanks don't get it: conservatives don't need conservative takes on policy issues–they need to get the government out of the business of even having policies in many of the areas we take for granted. That's part of the message a reinvigorated right-wing party should be working on. Just remember: most Americans don't believe in evolution and a very large percentage believes in the Young Earth theory. Many or even most Americans reject crucial parts of modern natural science; persuading them to reject crucial elements of the liberal theory of governing shouldn't be out of the question.
Gestell,
You wrote, "Ted Kennedy was not given support here in Massachusetts solely because he was a liberal. He did a great job in directing federal resources to the academic medical system, which translated into programs that led to thousands of people having jobs. When conservatives win regularly, they must do similar things… like it or not, it is how government really works."
And then, "…but conservatives need to think in terms of persuading many millions of people to give up on the idea of the federal government as problem-solver."
Please reconcile the two statements.
Phil,
You said, "We need every seat we can get, now and to protect against future losses. It’s foolish to arbitrarily just give some districts away."
I believe I was saying the same thing. My point was that we don't have to win in leftist districts, we only have to win a majority.
MM: I agree we're probably not going to make much headway in a district where 80% of the population is on welfare, regardless of who we run. But "leftist" is an overly-broad term.
Unless it takes a 100% liberal to win a district, I say we find someone who can compete. You can never have enough seats in the Congress.
By the way, I submitted my latest article "The Hoplessness of Debate Part III" last Thursday". It's not a direct reflection of this discussion.
Well, this has certainly been a revealing discussion. Sadly, not in a manner that I would like, but I guess we know better where we stand.
I agree with Mr. Jackson that you can't insist on perfect candidates; strange thing is, I don't remember that I ever did. Not one of the Presidential, Senatorial, Representative, Gubernatorial, or Unicameral (unique to Nebraska) candidates have ever been quite what I wanted. I've frequently voted for candidates who seemed comparatively half-hearted about important issues, such as abortion, gay "marriage", fiscal restraint, and so on.
So the question becomes: How much compromise is too much?
How much baloney do you tolerate from a candidate before you start seeking others?
This discussion came about because of the article about Chmn Steele being quasi eager for Pro-Abortion candidates to become Republicans. As Mr. Jackson would point out, more Republicans would wrestle power away from Pelosi and company. Fine enough.
But what would this ultimately accomplish? An end to abortion? Lower taxes? Smaller government?
I'm afraid I don't buy that!
If candidate is pro-choice, why would that candidate, upon election, suddenly vote pro-life? Why would such a candidate even entertain an intent to restrict abortions?
For that matter, Chmn Steele and others also commented or implied earlier this year that the Republican Party ought to assume a more, uh, inclusive, mentality. So theoretically, the Republicans wish to elect pro-gay "marriage", pro-whatever candidates. And the party wishes to enact legislation appropriately.
Great! So we can have comparatively liberal or permissive policy on the books with a bright, red, Republican stamp of approval!
At least they aren't as vigorously and crassly pro-choice or secular as the Democrats would be. Right?
I suppose we should thank Chmn Steele for at least being honest about the Party's general intentions. I can finally relate to the various minority howls about lacking a voice.
Neither party cares a whit about the ideals of the People and both would like to make believe that I don't exist.
Hurray.