Work on the Wiki continues. As I work on some of the pages and sections and behind the scene stuff I am coming out here to ask a question.
Stix had a suggestion, that we add a section with information and links to groups and organizations that promote conservative ideas. What groups would you suggest? Please put your suggestions in the comments.
Sphere: Related ContentI mentioned the other day on my blog that I need to spend more time here at Reclaim Conservatism. I plan on doing that and working harder at developing this site the way I envision it.
Let me lay out a few thoughts and ideas.
First, let me mention that I’ve turned off registration. I was getting way too many spam entries (as many as 25 a day). That doesn’t mean we’re not looking for others interested in writing. We would love to have more authors who are interested in posting here. If you would like to contribute, and haven’t already registered, drop me an email at lakelandjim at gmail dot com. You can also contact me (@brightandearly) via twitter.
While I think that a wide range of topical material is great, I would like to promote a bit narrower focus here. I would encourage all the contributors here (present, future, and me) to concentrate on posts that center around the idea of reclaiming conservatism. In fact I would like this site to the go-to site for articles, suggestions, ideas, ideals, encouragement, news, and anything else related to reclaiming conservatism.
Develop and use the front end. — If you look at the address of this blog (who does that?) you will notice that it is http://reclaimconservatism.com/blog/. I have some thoughts and plans for developing the main domain to encourage and equip conservatives to take action. Your ideas are welcomed and coveted! If you are interested in helping in this area please contact me.
Conservatism really hasn’t changed. The GOP, the party most associated with conservative values, has lost it’s focus. It is my considered opinion that the core values held by those who claim to be conservatives are as strong (and as relevant) as ever. I believe that a possible issue with the conservative banner is that we try to substitute policies and programs for values. Let’s rally round the values, the rest will take care of itself.
Addendum: I forgot to mention comments. We want comments! Add your comments, they are open on all but older posts. Be patient if they are held (new commenters) in moderation. I’ll get to them.
Sphere: Related ContentSouth Carolina Senator Jim DeMint laid out a very practical look at building the Republican “Big Tent” in a WSJ Opinion piece yesterday. Key to such an effort is this:
To win back the trust of the American people, we must be a “big tent” party. But big tents need strong poles, and the strongest pole of our party — the organizing principle and the crucial alternative to the Democrats — must be freedom. The federal government is too big, takes too much of our money, and makes too many of our decisions. If Republicans can’t agree on that, elections are the least of our problems.
The Republican Party has spent a lot of time and effort trying to construct a big tent by stitching a bunch of little tents together. It has proven to be ineffective and, in some cases, impossible. We tend to overlook the fact that despite the myriad of fabrics we use to cover our tents the supports hold much in common.
The reality that, “The federal government is too big, takes too much of our money, and makes too many of our decisions” is the common theme that can provide the basis for all of our coalition building.
Freedom will mean different things to different Republicans, but it can tether a diverse coalition to inalienable principles. Republicans can welcome a vigorous debate about legalized abortion or same-sex marriage; but we should be able to agree that social policies should be set through a democratic process, not by unelected judges. Our party benefits from national-security debates; but Republicans can start from the premise that the U.S. is an exceptional nation and force for good in history. We can argue about how to rein in the federal Leviathan; but we should agree that centralized government infringes on individual liberty and that problems are best solved by the people or the government closest to them.
John Hawkins adds his thoughts:
Still, this ain’t football. It’s not all about cheering for “our team.” So, being a “Republican” has to mean something. So, what DeMint lays down are some very broad and inclusive — but also, conservative principles that EVERY Republican — moderate, conservative, libertarian leaning, neocon, paleocon, and social conservative should be able to agree on. If you can’t AT LEAST agree to the incredibly basic principles that DeMint is discussing here, then you’re probably in the wrong political party.
Ed Morrissey makes several good points:
Jim DeMint, who has campaigned for conservatives and conservative causes, advises his allies on the Right that the GOP needs to narrow its focus if it expects to win elections again. In fact, the more narrow the focus, the bigger the tent
One key problem plaguing Republicans has been trying to be all things to all people. This leads to attempts to provide government solutions, federal solutions, on what should be state, local, and individual issues.
Senator DeMint:
Moderate and liberal Republicans who think a South Carolina conservative like me has too much influence are right! I don’t want to make decisions for them. That’s why I’m working to reduce Washington’s grip on our lives and devolve power to the states, communities and individuals, so that Northeastern Republicans, Western Republicans, Southern Republicans, and Midwestern Republicans can define their own brands of Republicanism. It’s the Democrats who want to impose a rigid, uniform agenda on all Americans. Freedom Republicanism is about choice — in education, health care, energy and more. It’s OK if those choices look different in South Carolina, Maine and California.
The problem, especially in recent years, is that instead of offering candidates and policies that adhere to these basic principles Republicans have too often presented themselves as “Democrat-Lite”.
Captain Ed once again:
If the GOP presents voters with a choice between a fake Democrat and a real Democrat, voters will choose the authentic item every time. The Republican Party at some point began being afraid of its own core values of smaller government, greater personal freedom, and federalism.
DeMint makes it very clear why this is true.
If the American people want a European-style social democracy, the Democratic Party will give it to them. We can’t win a bidding war with Democrats.
We have been trying to win that bidding war on the cheap. Unsuccessfully. And wrongly. In the process the only thing we’ve managed to do has been to drive up the price. We can’t continue to do this and hope to be successful as a party and, I would argue, as a nation.
Cross posted from bRight & Early.
Maybe he has a case of porcine induced influenza, but let’s face it; Arlen Specter didn’t switch parties, he switched party labels. If there was ever a case of SwINO (Switch In Name Only) this is it.
Well, at least he did it for such principled reasons.
I am unwilling to have my 29-year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.
For me, this sums up his entire reasoning. He switched because he knew he was going to get beat like Desi Arnez’s conga in the primary.
Cross posted from bRight & Early
Sphere: Related ContentI stated the other day that I wanted to examine the Six Keys to Turning Around The Republican Party suggested by John Hawkins. Today I’ll take a look at the first offering, The job of the loyal opposition is to oppose. Here is what John had to say:
The key to firing up the base, drawing the clear distinction with the Democrats, and for that matter, good governance, is loudly opposing bad bills at every opportunity. The GOP should never support bad legislation merely so it can claim to be “bi-partisan” or so it can say it “did something” at election time.
I’ve heard it said that you can compromise plans, but never compromise principles. Working from this basis takes us in two complimentary directions.
When there is agreement regarding an action to be taken it is reasonable to compromise over the path used to accomplish that action. An overly simplified real world example would be suggesting to a co-worker that you go to lunch at one o’clock. If they state that they are really hungry and want to go at twelve and you counter that you have a conference call at twelve, but that you should be ready by twelve thirty and they agree, you’ve reached a legitimate compromise. You were both in agreement about the principle of eating lunch. The rest, as they say, is details.
The flip side of this scenario is opposing any alternative just on the basis of who made the suggestion, a desire to wield power, or simple contrariness. That reasoning typically leads to one party being resentful for no legitimate reason. Taken to the extreme nothing gets done and no one is happy.
That being said, John’s point was that the job of the loyal opposition is to oppose. There is a case to be made for standing in strong opposition to issues that are contrary to deeply held principles. There is no virtue in adopting the “go along to get along” stance when doing so goes against what you truly believe.
Let’s go back to lunch with a somewhat silly example to make the point. You have a principled stand against eating at The Pig Trough, a local barbecue joint. Your opposition is rooted in your beliefs that cleanliness is a virtue in a restaurant, visible vermin are a turn-off, trichinosis is something to be avoided, and $19.95 is too much to pay for a pulled pork sandwich. Even if your co-worker’s favorite eatery is The Pig Trough this is not an opportunity for compromise.
How does this apply to turning around the Republican Party? I believe that standing in opposition to bad policy and bad legislation, even when that opposition is unsuccessful, is the right play to make in two primary ways.
Most importantly it is the right thing to do. When our party and it’s leaders take a stand on any issue it should be based on the principles and beliefs that advance what is best for both individuals and the country as a whole. When opposing some policy or piece of legislation it is vital that our opposition is rooted in principle. Being on the winning side is not victory if it is the wrong side.
An important corollary to opposition made on this basis is that the opportunity then exists to show the people and demonstrate the principles that define our opposition. I would argue that standing in opposition while offering neither an explanation or an alternative is no better than tacit support.
Finally, principled opposition creates a clear demarcation between our stands and those that we stand against. One recent and recurring criticism of the Republican Party is that we have become Dem-Lite. There is little reason to support a party that is nearly identical to the other party, just less so.
I welcome you to add your thoughts on this post. Next up — Stop conceding so many groups of voters.
Cross posted from bRight & Early.
Sphere: Related ContentJohn Hawkins offers Six Keys to Turning Around The Republican Party. Over the next week I hope to examine each of those keys in detail. For this morning let’s just take a look at his introduction and list the keys that he sees.
If we want to fix what ails the Republican Party, it’s worth taking a few moments to diagnose what went wrong, while acknowledging what the Democrats did right. Once we’ve diagnosed the disease and figured out how another patient overcame similar problems, we can start to get the GOP’s health back on track.
First off, the Republican Party succeeded from 2000-2004, not — as some people think — because they softened their ideological edges, but because the GOP had an edge over the Democrats on foreign policy issues, which were the dominant issues of those election cycles. However, by the 2006 election, the war in Iraq had turned into a net negative for the GOP and domestic issues — where the party’s agenda has become stale and out of step with the base — had become much more important.
The image that I’ve had regarding this is that conservatives, operating under the Republican Party umbrella, have been offering the cheep store brand product and trying to tell us it’s the same as the name brand.
Here are John’s Keys that we are going to discuss:
You (and I) may not agree with John’s assessment, but it is a good place to start a discussion. Check back later for the discussion of the first key.
As always, your comments are welcome and encouraged.
Cross-posted from bRight & Early.
Sphere: Related ContentJohn Hawkins examines a National Review piece by James Gimpel. Here is a bit of the flavor of Gimpel’s work:
A campaign doesn’t move toward them [centrist or moderate voters], but instead attempts to inspire them to come in the candidate’s direction. The incoherent center moves to the left or to the right, inspired by the candidate’s enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of his supporters. It is foolish for the candidate to move to the center, because the center is never a fixed position to move toward.
Moving centrists toward one’s candidacy is not a process that hinges on taking the right policy stands, either. Instead, it involves the enthusiasm and social contagion that builds around exciting candidates. We know from several volumes of political-science research that less-informed voters commonly substitute someone else’s judgment for their own. That someone else is often a spouse, workmate, or neighbor knowledgeable and enthusiastic about one of the candidates. Support for a candidate spreads through social influence processes.
I believe the case could be made that moving toward the center does nothing more than move the center. When either the left or right changes their focus those in the middle also shift so that they remain in the “center”. Conversely, moving toward your base could, I believe, move the center in your direction as well.
Here is Hawkin’s take as it relates to the Republican party:
The GOP no longer has the courage of their conservative principles and so, on many of their core principles, they offer up nothing but mush.
In other words, we’re a small government, cost cutting, law and order, party of the middle class and honest government that supports big government, ever increasing deficits, illegal immigration, tolerates corruption, and doesn’t offer much to the middle class.
People wonder why small government and cutting deficit spending doesn’t appear to be all that popular with the American people right now. Well, could it be because the same Republican politicians who are talking up “small government” have brought us large deficits, the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit, and are nationalizing our banks as part of a ridiculous, unnecessary bailout?
If the Republicans in Washington don’t even believe in their own party’s principles, is it any surprise that moderates don’t either?
No, it’s not.
Cross posted from bRight & Early
Sphere: Related ContentA look back at the election:
All of the landslide majority did not vote against the conservative philosophy; they voted against a false image our Liberal opponents successfully mounted. Indeed it was a double false image. Not only did they portray us as advancing a kind of radical departure from the status quo, but they took for themselves a costume of comfortable conservatism. Read again their campaign fiction and you will find their normal flamboyant Liberalism hidden under the protective coloration[.]
Not the election just past. The passage above was written by Ronald Reagan following the defeat of Barry Goldwater. It is still an entirely accurate assessment of how the left campaigns — lie about conservative positions (think “Republicans are going to steal grandma’s Social Security”) as they do their best to hide their own liberal agenda.
Later in the piece Reagan says, “Our job beginning now is not so much to sell conservatism as to prove that our conservatism is in truth what a lot of people thought they were voting for when they fell for the cornpone come-on.” In the most recent campaign it was not a cornpone come-on, but the mantra of hope and change. Still, our job remains the same — commit ourselves to core conservative values and rededicate ourselves to communicating those values.
(h/t: Babalu Blog for the Reagan article.)
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
Comment Analysis
Most Comments
Latest Comments
Latest Commented Posts
Most Commented Posts
Users Online
Tags
Twitter
Topics
Blogroll
Stats
Archives
Meta