.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Heavy-Handed Politics

"€œGod willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world
without the United States and Zionism."€ -- Iran President Ahmadi-Nejad

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

What's Wrong with Conservatives?

Joseph Farah writes:

"I've been challenging "conservatives" to look in the mirror to understand why they keep losing ground.

It's not that conservatives are bad people. In fact, they may be too kind for their own good and the good of the country – too accommodating, too tolerant, too patient, too forgiving, too busy.

It's not the heart of conservatives that is in the wrong place. It's a fundamental problem with tactics.

I think conservatives might actually be ready to reinvent themselves and their movement.

That will be an absolute requirement for effectiveness in the future.

What's wrong with "conservatives"?

Think about it. What are they trying to do? "Conserve." They are fighting a strictly defensive battle with their political and cultural opponents – trying only to hold on to some of their values and political accomplishments of the past.

When have you ever seen a war won that was fought strictly on defense?

What are the objectives and goals of the conservative movement?

It would appear they are limited to holding back the onslaught of socialism and tyranny, slowing down the trends, placing their fingers in the dikes that are close to bursting and washing them away.

When have "conservatives" ever won a meaningful, long-term struggle in the history of mankind? Never.

Only those who have clear goals and objectives have any hope of realizing their dreams.

Stopping the other side is not a goal. Slowing the loss of freedom is not an objective.

We need goals like our Founding Fathers had:
1.building a shining city on a hill that would be a light to all nations;
2.expanding freedom;
3.empowering individuals, communities and states to govern themselves;
4.breaking the bands that tie us to the old world and the old way of doing things;
5.striving for independence and sovereignty;
6.living in peace and in obedience to our Creator.

The Founders were not "conservatives." They did something no other people in the history of the world had done – threw off the shackles of foreign despotism and put those shackles right on their own new government to ensure liberty would triumph.

There are lessons in what the Founders achieved that are relevant to us today. I would suggest you consider Americans today are under a yoke of oppression from Washington that rivals anything the colonials experienced in the 18th century.

The question is: Are conservatives ready to get radical?"


  • Yes, I take Josephs points. Then again, is it not the left that is currently fighting a purely defensive battle and trying to ‘stop the other side’ and preserve the status quo? And, while you can point to some recent decided setbacks and some ominous signs of lost momentum, conservatism has gained and liberalism has lost over the past decade or so. That, just to keep our spirits up.

    By all means we must be less defensive and more aggressive. A perfect case in point is our tactics regarding the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. In a post yesterday I made the point that we are allowing, at our own peril, the Democrats to dictate the terms of the debate as a political fight between conservatism vs. liberalism. Sure enough, last night on Hannity and Colmes, Alan Colmes nailed Laura Ingraham for now objecting to a nominee on the basis of political ideology, the very thing Republicans have been saying was wrong when engaged in by Democrats. Despite her best efforts, Laura was left with her bare face hanging out. To the extent that we object to Harriet Miers, we should do so on the basis of her unknown judicial philosophy. That negates the Democrats rote ‘hypocrisy’ argument and shifts the terms of the debate to an objective principle that favors us. We could even take a page from Alans own playbook and self-righteously declare that we are only concerned with a principle which rises above politics.

    I recall a conversation I had with a Liberal friend of mine several years back who proposed that now familiar canard that ‘he does not consider himself to be a Liberal so much as a Progressive’. To which the obvious and conversation stopping reply was; ‘Yeah, what new idea has your side had since school busing?’ We need another visionary in the mold of Newt Gingrich. We need the constant flood of new ideas that rolled off that mans tongue every time he spoke. We had them on the run with ‘The contract with America’ and we let them regroup with nothing more substantive than the sophomoric word play of ‘The contract on America’ and the subsequent excoriating and ultimately successful attack on Newt on a personal level. Okay, that is the way it goes and we lost that battle, but the real defeat was that we then abandoned the tactic! Mr Farrah is right, and we need to be aggressive, advance new ideas and exploit the vacuous populism of the left.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:11 AM  

  • I agree with your point that it is the left that is reeling. My opinion of the current state of the Democrat party is that they only have "unity" on their side.

    Before you say "whoa, wait a minute, what unity?," let me explain. They lack ideas and clear messages, so in this context they are not unified.

    But they do put up a unified front, much better than the Republicans. You rarely see the Dems take another Dem to task.

    You see that quite frequently in the Republican party. And when a Republican attacks a Dem, the Dems in force rally around their party member. Whereas, there are some Republicans that are eager to join in with the Dems when a Republican is being slandered.

    Aggressiveness with a more unified front would go a long way in this battle of ideas, because the Dems have none.

    By Blogger HeavyHanded, at 5:29 PM  

  • Yes, H-H, I completely agree with you regarding the Democrat’s unity and the Republican’s all too frequent lack of it. Interestingly, it seems to me, it is not a unity of principle but rather a partisan unity that can simply ignore lapses in their espoused principles. It is a kind of ‘party blood is thicker than water’ mentality.

    Examples abound but they are nowhere more obvious than in the way in which they continue to idolize Bill Clinton despite the loses the party endured under his stewardship and his posturing for credit regarding such traditional Republican principles and accomplishments during his administration as lower taxes and welfare reform. All in order to fabricate his own legacy and to the express detriment of Democrat principles and incumbency.

    Now, of course, they are perfectly happy, gleeful even, to watch Hillary Clinton redefine herself to be something other than the Liberal we all know her to be and which they presumably covet if that will get her elected President. I suppose they can do that because, in her case ,they, like us, know that it doesn’t really matter what she now says, she is a Liberal. If she can elsewise con others into voting for her so much the better and isn’t she just oh so clever.

    That, I have always thought, is in sharp contrast to Bill. I never believed Bill was a Liberal except by expediency. Had he been born a generation earlier in Germany, I believe he would have been just as adamant a member of the Hitler youth movement as he was of the 60’s anti-Vietnam war movement. He is just a populist, or, more accurately, a Clintonite who understands how to exploit populism toward his own self aggrandizement. Triangulation was a natural for him.

    Anyway, it is ‘my party right or wrong’ as far as the Democrats are concerned and even a non-Liberal Hillary Clinton presidency would enjoy their continued and rabid support.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:43 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home