Good luck trying to be both a conservative AND a republican. This passage from Glenn Greenwald sums it up.
"Conservatism in some circles really has morphed into The Cult of George Bush, which is why any criticism of the Leader -- even when the criticism is based on conservative principles -- is deemed to be blasphemous to the Cause.
The idea that "Bush is off course" is traumatic and wrong and has no place at a "conservative" event, where only praise and reverence of the Commander-in-Chief is appropriate.
"Conservatism" these days very rarely has anything to do with actual conservative principles of government and has come to be distorted shorthand for "George Bush follower."
The problem with that argument is simply that Bush is not a conservative. He is a neocon: a big government, religious right "conervative." The problem is that right now, Bush and the Religious Right are the face of conservatism in this country, as opposed to the conservatism of Newt Gingrich, Stephen Harper, or Sen. Tom Coburn.
The RR neocons are running away with the GOP, but not for long, because the Congressional GOP has failed at government. The Spirit of 1994 is certainly dormant, and possibly dead.
You need Trent Lott as whip.
The real conservatives got in to bed with the religious fanatics and the NeoCons in order to get some help at the polls, but thinking they would continue to call the shots.
It has not worked out that way, and I think Bob Barr shows that the real conservatives are no longer welcome in the GOP's big tent.
This primary season will be interesting.
"The real conservatives got in to bed with the religious fanatics and the NeoCons in order to get some help at the polls, but thinking they would continue to call the shots."
Instead of making an actual argument, why not just toss the terms "religious fanatics" and "neocons" around? Because to the left: a) anyone who is of faith who is not Muslim is a fanatic, and b) "neocon" is such a superfluous term these days, it is practically slang. I dare you to actually define both in terms that are not in some way insulting to someone.
As for the GOP's "big tent," I think it is still far bigger than the DNC's tent, and the DNC is far closer to a split than the GOP. After all, the Democrats are the people pushing out reasoned men like Joe Lieberman in favor of the Ted Kennedies and Dick Durbins of the party.
Perhaps you should stick to your knitting, Jason.
Oops, for clarity, I meant define "religious fanatic" and "neocon" in an objective way, not based on your personal prejudices towards conservatives.
Jess, since I used the term neocons, I'll define it as well (and actual Christian fanatics worry me almost as much as Muslim ones do, except for the violence part).
To me a neocon is a big government pro-military "conservative."
Jess,
Instead of making an actual argument, why not just ask me to define terms that are in common usage? Okay, I'll bite.
I used "religious fanatic" to mean any anti-libertarian voters determined to install Christianity as the official religion of the United States under the cover of criminalizing abortion and homosexuality.
Better ?
...and with regard to Bush being a conservative, I agree with Ryan, Bush is no conservative.
He is merely an advocate for his class, for unearned wealth and privilege. Smarter people have dressed him up as a conservative. He pretends to be a Christian. But nowhere in his actions is there a single example of either credo. The last ten years of a GOP-controlled Congress and the last five Republican presidents: no conservatism in sight. Government becomes bigger, more expensive, and more powerful.
Conservatism today is just an advertising jingle.
Though I almost completely disagree with its tenents, Conservatism at least follows some logical argument. I fail to see any logic in many of Bush's actions. I know there were accusations flying at Kerry in the last election that he would say anything people wanted to hear in order to get elected (I am not arguing that this is wholly inaccurate by any means), but realistically, it seems Bush does the same thing. He takes bits and pieces of policies from various constituencies and tries to patch them together; the result has been a mix of social conservatism, which I equate with bigger government, and increased spending on some programs that don't really solve any problems; in other words, more big government. He has not been fiscally responsible and has ran up the debt to record numbers, along with the trade defecit.
The Dems are a loose coalition, and always have been. That is one of the reasons why we have trouble with national candidates. However, cracks in the "Republican" monolith are starting to become more visible. However, perhaps people like Newt Gingrich and others can again come up with a plan to reinspire Conservatism.
I sincerely hope that this does not happen, though the Dems need a leader who can do the same. I think the next couple of elections could be interesting. Depending on who comes out of the woodworks, I think there may be some realignment. Should be fun to watch,
Right now, one of the bigger factors keeping the GOP in is the DNC.
Also, I do believe that Bush is a man of his convictions. Like most people, they do not always add up to some codified philosophy.
And what does outlawing abortion have to do with Christianity? Were it a "Christian issue," it the pro-life movement would stem from the evangelicals, and not the Democratic-leaning Catholic Church.
Mike- "I know there were accusations flying at Kerry in the last election that he would say anything people wanted to hear in order to get elected (I am not arguing that this is wholly inaccurate by any means), but realistically, it seems Bush does the same thing."
They all do. Agreed. And at least you're willing to admit Democrats have a leadership deficit of their own, unlike some. Your points on big government, fiscal responsibility, and trade also true. Congrats on managing to state your case without hurling spurious invectives. However, this does not mean I will be joining the DNC because they stand outright for bigger government, in all areas except morality, and neither party needs to be legislating that anyway. The GOP is the party that repulses me the least. How inspiring is that, lol?! And does that make my love of Stephen Harper any clearer?
Ryan- I missed your use of "neocon." I still think it's a completely superfluous term, because it's used now to define almost anyone on the right, in a negative way.
Jason- Therefore, I owe you somewhat an apology, although I think you are ridiculously prejudiced towards those whose religious convictions do not fit into your ideology, as well as towards anyone who thinks differently than you. And you seem blind to the problems in your own party. It's sad, really.
Conservatism is not in great shape in this country, at this point in history. However, I wouldn't argue that the Democrats are faring much better. Nancy Pelosi is likely to be ousted from her position, and the far-left in the party are trying their damnedest to unseat Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, which will probably help the Republicans more than Democrats. Splitting a vote anywhere is bad for a party to gain or retain power.
What we really need is a populist movement, like the earlier Reform Party of Canada/ Canadian Alliance. Once again, it all comes back to Harper.
Or Newt Gingrich. 
I suggest you all read this:
http://www.house.gov/house/Contr...t/
CONTRACT.html
my third favorite American document after the Constitution and the Declaration.
Neocons are a self-ID'd group, especially if they work for The Weekly Standard.
Well, for me, it's always about Harper.
At least, for now.
Forgot to mention, the Boehner victory was not a huge victory for conservatism, if you want to call it that at all. Shadegg was the far better choice in that regard, and only 15 Congressmen supported him. Among those, my old boss, Tom Feeney (yay!) and Jim Sensenbrenner (also yay!). And pretty much the rest of the Republican Study Committee, the true conservatives in the House.
Additionally, while I'm on a roll, Social Security is to America what Medicare is to Canada, both are "enshrined" as great achievements in social programming, despite the fact that both are in need of serious reform and improvement. One of my closest "conservative" friends recently chastised me for suggesting that Social Security will not be around when she and I are old enough to collect because, "We have to do something for old people." It has not occurred to her that she will be old and that the current system is going to buckle long before she reaches that point. But so long as her grandmothers- both of whom have a great deal of wealth without Social Security- are receiving, it's fine. There probably will not be Social Security reform before we are old enough to really worry about it because our generation will be the first to have to do without.
I said "Boehner is a cautious step forward" meaning that I am not jumping for joy, but it could have been worse. Shadegg should become Speaker.
I plan on starting a Roth IRA as soon as possible.
Aww, Jess, you're not going to switch parties? lol.
I think I'll do a post on my blog about my views on government size and the welfare state. I have some ideas, but I don't want to clog up your post on the state of Conservatism with them. Great discussion everyone!
And pretty civil. Even 'the scourge' wasn't too rowdy.
I'm too busy savoring the idea of a Michele Malkin-Anne Coulter sandwich.
G Rex- Shhhhhhh. There are ladies present! :-P
Commenting by HaloScan
