Nov
4
Moving Forward
Filed Under Conservatism
Last night’s elections were good news for recovering conservatives: Christie in NJ, McDonnell in VA, and Hoffman barely loses on a third party ticket to the Democrat endorsed by the party-money-taking RINO Scozzafava. The races, especially in the case of NY-23, have brought about a lot of chatter about how the GOP should move forward, how it can remain viable and principled, and what level of moderation we should be willing to accept in places where conservatives are typically not found.
AOSHQ had some thoughts on the future of the Republican party and the supposed conflict between conservatives and moderates:
I do not think these two camps are as far apart as their proponents seem to think. It is often the case that maximalists accuse, or suggest, that pragmatists aren’t interested in electing more conservative candidates, or of supporting more conservative primary challengers to confirmed RINOs. And it often the case that pragmatists (including myself) seem to talk as if the maximalists are unaware that a Tom Coburn type candidate wouldn’t fare so well in liberal New Jersey or arch-Democratic Maryland.
For what it’s worth, I agree with Mike Flynn at Big Government that fiscal, and not social conservatism will be the real divining rod in the politics of the future (emphasis mine):
This year, the Washington Post—the most effective arm of the Virginia Democrat Party—thought it found the silver bullet to kill the gubernatorial campaign of republican Bob McDonnell. They unearthed a 20-year old thesis McDonnell wrote in college that contained some pretty embarrassing statements–at least by today’s standards—about whether, for example, families are better off if the wife doesn’t work outside the home. The Democrats based almost their entire campaign, and the Post based most of its coverage, on McDonnell’s thesis. It must chill them to the bone that McDonnell is set to win by one of the larger margins in state history. It isn’t that the public, or even McDonnell today, agrees with what’s in the thesis; they just don’t care.
Conservatives, independents, and libertarian-leaning Republicans like myself will often be determining their support on fiscal issues, and I think that fiscal conservatism is something that can win nearly everywhere. I will not, however, join the chorus of bashing the “religious right” and looking to cast out a very important segment of the party. Nor will I, as Ace warned in his post, push my unorthodox positions (pro drug legalization and pro gay rights) as electoral winners. They are my positions, and I can try to persuade others to agree with me to the full extent of my ability, but I will not claim that they are viable political tools. As the Maine results showed, support for traditional marriage is still popular, even in liberal leaning states. And many who take an individualist or libertarian view on the issues are pro-life, which is where I stand.
I understand that there will need to be varying degrees of political positions for Republicans throughout the country. However, there must be a brand that voters can identify and count on in our party. We must stand for something, but we cannot stand for anything. Arlen Specterand Dede Scozzafava have no place on our side.
So where do we draw the line? We needn’t be open to everything, essentially political whores who see our next John in every voting block. Nor must we be the extremist caricature that the media paints conservatives to be. I think there are certain principles that every Republican in the country can and should support, which give voters a clear and consistent choice in contrast with the socialist Democrats, while still inclusive enough to win elections and, ya know, actually do something. Every Republican candidate in the country should believe that:
- The size of government should not be increased - We may disagree with what the ideal size of government should be. Some believe it is a hedge that needs trimming. I think it is a pit viper that should be strangled. However, we can agree that the whole thing is too damn big as it is, and no more should be added. That means no to Obamacare and the stimulus. Republicans can disagree to a lot of things while still holding to this maxim.
- All things being equal, the people who earn the money should be the ones to spend it and will do so better than the government can.
- Whatever path society follows in the future, government should be neutral. Government should be reffing the game, not calling the plays.
- The three branches of government should stick to their roles prescribed by the founders, especially in regards to the judiciary.
- The United States should have the most powerful military in the world, as deterrence through strength is the surest path to peace. Liberal democracies have a natural bond that should not be shunned in international relations. The United States is not perfect, but overall has played a positive and liberating role in history. The United States was a victim on September 11, 2001, not a perpetrator. There is NO excuse for terrorism, nor any apology necessary for our self defense. The 9/11 attacks were not meant to be a solitary event - they were not the beginning of Al-Quaeda’s war on the United States, and they were not the end (can you hear me Ron Paul?).
In addition, with Obama’s clowns in office, this period will present a great oppurtunity to the GOP to pick off the low hanging fruit - things like transparency, honesty, ethics, and competence. All around winners.
To borrow from our Dear Leader, let me be clear. The stakes of losing elections, even for the sake of purity, are very high. However, we can not elect RINO candidates whose only accomplishment is to put GOP fingerprints on legislative clusterfucks like Medicare Part D, NCLB, TARP and Obamacare, allowing us to be indicted when these things inevitably blow up in America’s face. There can be room for dissent on issues, but we must offer a choice, not an echo.
Comments
Leave a Reply
