*** You’ve got to actually win an election (rather, elections that give you a majority in Congress) before can get to your questions about what to do with this power.

Abstract discussions are fine, but unless they relate to the real world in a real, immediate way, they’re just feelings and opinions. Right now there’s a debate going on in NASA about how big the individual living area for each astronaut should be on Mars. That is indeed an important issue to protect the sanity of the astronauts and the success of the mission. But until a Mars mission becomes practical, it’s not really all that important an issue.

Steele’s pronouncements were about the tactics we need to win enough seats to exercise power. You want to denounce the tactics because they conflict with your view of what conservatism is all about, then focus on a discussion of how to exercise conservative power. In effect, you want to ignore the real world issues surrounding this matter, and focus instead on ideological abstractions.

That’s fine for a purely academic discussion. But you chose to insert this abstract conversation into an article about political tactics, and respond to what I wrote about the blending of tactics with the attainment of power to actually implement a policy with the introduction “Ladies and Gents: The discussion above explains quite well why I'm not longer eager to be a card-carrying Republican.”

If you want to write an abstract article about abstract conservative values that ignore any way to actually implement some or all of these values in the present political system, do so. But don’t keep harping on the fact that an article about political tactics doesn’t ignore these tactics just to focus on ideology.

And don’t continue to be so superficial in the way you purport to analyze a subject. You are either ignorant, dishonest, or a fool to say “… thereby halting the Reid/Pelosi train, thereby theoretically reducing the avalanche of liberal policy-making, including stemming the tide of abortions.”

I went to great lengths to show you exactly how this process functions in the real world. Your condescending use of “theoretical” suggests that you think there is no real difference between Pelosi as Speaker or a Republican (making you a fool), or that the actual calculation I gave you is just a lot of hot air for how to use token liberal Republicans elected in liberal districts to produce a change in policy that will reduce the number of abortions compared to the policies the Democrats implement (making you dishonest).

“Theoretical” doesn’t mean ‘it hasn’t happened yet’. It’s the difference between saying that we can just go ahead and change the Constitution by a Constitutional Convention (which is a theoretical, but not likely possibility), and saying that John Boehner would not advocate the same policies as Nancy Pelosi if he was Speaker. It’s theoretically possible that once Speaker, Boehner would advocate mandatory abortions for every woman under 52 and Gitmo internment for all three legged Albanian dwarfs living in New Jersey. But only an idiot would say that this is a real possibility.

So stop being cute with your sloppy use of language to try and prove a point which you cannot demonstrate by actually analyzing a real world issue because you don’t really understand how the real world functions, and just want to express your hurt feelings about the way things seem to operate in Washington.

> Judging by the article above and what I've heard elsewhere, Chairman Steele intends policy that either quietly ignores what I actually believe, or else actively opposes it. If he succeeds in recruiting candidates that way, why would I support the candidates, regardless of what label they use?

*** Great sources. Steele said that abortion is a state’s choice (which is actually the Constitutionally-correct position). Steele doesn’t want to condemn homosexual as individuals (which obviously means he must adamantly support Gay marriage). This second hand characterization of Steele’s comments, coupled with what you’ve “heard elsewhere”, is the basis for an informed judgment?

You’ve yet to address any of the substantive problems I’ve pointed out about your reasoning. This newspaper and rumor ‘research’ is exactly the kind of stuff we get from the Left that is to lazy, or ignorant, to actually state and defend a position with anything other than their feelings.

>I think most of us have been dealing with the real world for quite some time. We're wondering why the Republicans won't lead the way into a better way of life for America. If Constitutional amendments and other efforts aren't common, maybe that's because one Party (Democrats) most likely wouldn't support the amendment, while the other party (Republicans) seem unwilling to try.

*** Hopeless. Absolutely hopeless. This is supposed to be an “intellectual” conservative website, not a forum to share our hurt feelings. This is just embarrassing.

>If you win a political victory, but still don't enact policy, haven't you essentially lost anyway?

*** Utterly hopeless. You’ve ignored absolutely everything I’ve written before, refuse to address any of it substantively, and continue to whine about politics instead of actually educating yourself to do something effectively.

And one wonders why the Democrats completely control government. Too many people on our side would rather moan and complain than listen and learn, and through that, actually make their policies a reality.

I regret this likely will be my last posting for this conversation; I'm neglecting other needs too much.

Mr. Jackson, your points regarding the Supreme Court, the typical flow of political life, and so on are quite well taken. I rather thought those were pre-requisites to understanding what needs to happen, therefore I didn't address them terribly directly.

But again, my point has never been to declare how the Republicans can win power, thereby halting the Reid/Pelosi train, thereby theoretically reducing the avalanche of liberal policy-making, including stemming the tide of abortions.

My points have always been:
- What will the Republicans do with power once they've gained it?
- What reasons should I explain to friends for why they should advocate Republican candidates vs Democrats or others?

Judging by the article above and what I've heard elsewhere, Chairman Steele intends policy that either quietly ignores what I actually believe, or else actively opposes it. If he succeeds in recruiting candidates that way, why would I support the candidates, regardless of what label they use?

I think most of us have been dealing with the real world for quite some time. We're wondering why the Republicans won't lead the way into a better way of life for America. If Constitutional amendments and other efforts aren't common, maybe that's because one Party (Democrats) most likely wouldn't support the amendment, while the other party (Republicans) seem unwilling to try.

So, what to do?
We typically have the choice between pretending that we're accomplishing something with Republicans…or acknowledging that our values actually don't count for much with either party.

If you win a political victory, but still don't enact policy, haven't you essentially lost anyway?

*** This is the precisely correct question to ask. The answer, however, involves more than what one (or even a group of individuals) prefers. It’s a balance between what is practically achievable in a given district, and the pressing need to achieve victory in an election.

If your ideology is in the majority, and that majority is substantive, then you can be more ideologically rigid than the party seeking to overturn that majority.

Power without ideology is corrupt — but it’s still power, and it can do great damage to your interests and the country. But ideology without power cannot accomplish anything substantive.

This is the calculation that we need to understand before we automatically embrace or reject a particular election tactic. Right now we need every seat to stop the Democrats from implementing their damaging ideology.

>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? … I'm afraid I don't buy that!

*** You continue to speak in absolutes with no apparent understanding of how thing actually work. Abortion will never end in this country unless and until 3 things happen. (1) SCOTUS overturns the “privacy” interpretations in the Constitution, (2) Congress refuses to pass Federal laws assisting or abetting abortion, and (3) all 50 states ban abortion (Constitutionally, this is actually a state by state decision if you are a strict constructionist).

So to identify an “end” to abortion as the only acceptable goal is to misstate the dynamics of American politics. Limiting, reducing, etc. abortion is the only practical goal for the foreseeable future. Having Pelosi as the House Speaker does not accomplish this objective. It’s as straightforward as 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?

*** They probably wouldn’t. But if they help elect a Republican instead of Pelsos/Reid leadership, then there won’t be any pro-abort bills for them to vote on. So their election can lead to a positive outcome, regardless of their views on the subject. This is the real way the system operates.

>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.

*** You can put all the words in someone else’s mouth you want, but it doesn’t make it a real statement by a real person. I routinely slam the Left for speaking in hyperbolic excess to make a point, and I cut the Right no slack here either. If you have an actual quote from Steel about wanting to enact Gay marriage legislation, then produce it. Or, if you have an actual real world analysis to share that can support this position with something other than your feelings, spell it out.

If not, don’t embarrass yourself with phony "theoretical" and silly ‘logical’ conclusions that are neither logically derived nor actual conclusions, but rather just the product of hurt feelings.

>Great! So we can have comparatively liberal or permissive policy on the books with a bright, red, Republican stamp of approval!

*** This is stupid, given all that I’ve actually written above, none of which you’ve bothered to address with anything other than your feelings.

>Neither party cares a whit about the ideals of the People and both would like to make believe that I don't exist. Hurray.

*** Again, another shrill, stupid statement that represents nothing more than your feelings. The sad thing is, there are some folks on the Left who actually try on occasion to support their position instead of whine about things they dislike. Not many, but a few.

This is really embarrassing coming from someone who speaks about the importance of philosophy and ideology, when after all is said and done, we get nothing more than a litany of hurt feelings offered as a comment on US election strategy.

Whining doesn’t win elections. Unless and until we all come to grips with how the real world works, we’ll continue to lose, and our interests will continue to suffer.

It's time for everybody to grow up and function in the real world. Then maybe we'll actually see some success in promoting our interests, instead of just feeling good about losing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.