I’m talking to myself in the headline. It’s pretty bad when the person who maintains the Blogiversary Database doesn’t realize that one of his blogs — this one — is celebrating it’s Blogiversary. That’s right, Reclaim Conservatism celebrates it’s first year today.
Thanks to everyone who contributes here, and especially to everyone who takes time to comment, or just stop by.
We are working to make this a better site, a true go-to destination for information and action regarding conservatism.
While I have your attention, I’d like to invite you to take a look at the Reclaim Wiki. After you look, I’d like to invite you to do a few more things.
- Sign up and help us grow the project.
- Tell others about what we are doing at the Wiki.
- A little link love is always appreciated.
Thanks again for visiting. We look forward to seeing you again and again in year two.
Sphere: Related ContentI told you I wanted to spend more time developing this site, and boy have I. I spent several hours last night setting up the Reclaim Conservatism Wiki.
The wiki is being set up to be a repository of conservative information and resources. You are encouraged to help with this project by adding and editing information there, or by sending your information to: wiki at reclaimconservatism dot com. At the very least, please take a look and bookmark the site. Point others to it too, if you will.
I am really looking for people who are familiar with working on a wiki. Your help will be invaluable.
Well, I’m headed over there now for a few minutes. Join me?
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.
I 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 ContentWe are not the only site or group intent on rebuilding and reintroducing conservative values into government. Patrick Ruffini and a large group of other conservatives have launched Rebuild the Party. From their site:
Either we can spend the next several months — or years — trying to figure out what just happened, excusing our defeat away as a temporary blip or the result of a poor environment, and waiting for Barack Obama to trip up. Or we can refuse to take this defeat lying down, and start building the future of our party now.
Take a look at the plan they’ve put in place.
Sphere: Related ContentReclaiming conservatism is going to take the involvement of everyone who believes in conservative principles. ReclaimConservatism.com is going to take group involvement as well. Here’s how you can help:
- Add Reclaim Conservatism to your blogroll.
- Don’t forget to add the Reclaim Conservatism rss feed to your feed reader.
- In addition to the blog there is also the Reclaim Conservatism Forum for discussion that goes beyond the posts and comments here.
- If you’ve registered, and would like to be able to add your posts, drop me a note at lakelandjim at gmail dot com.
- Have something you would like us to consider for posting? You can send it to: guestpost at reclaimconservatism dot com.
- Link, link, link.
- Tell your readers about this site.
I’m sure there’s more, but I’ve got other things to work on. Your help is appreciated.
Sphere: Related ContentI secured the domain and started this site in May of this year inspired by a post by Doug Ross. Examining the results of last night’s election leads me to believe that the idea behind Reclaim Conservatism is going to be needed more than ever.
Of course defining true conservatism can be as difficult as determining to everyone’s satisfaction the best baseball team of all time. The real discussion, to use this analogy, isn’t which baseball team was best, but what makes a team great.
Let’s start the discussion with some of the words of the Great Communicator in his first inaugural address.
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.
We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we’re sick — professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truck drivers. They are, in short, “We the people,” this breed called Americans.
[...]
We are a nation that has a government — not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.
It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.
Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it’s not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work — work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.
It is my intention in the weeks and months ahead to use this platform to discuss and promote those ideals. There are bedrock principles that will allow us to begin the reclamation. It is from those ideals that plans and platforms can be developed.
At the end of his address President Regan told the story of Martin Treptow, a soldier who was killed in France during the First World War. He then closed with these words,
The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that Martin Treptow and so many thousands of others were called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds, to believe that together with God’s help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.
And after all, why shouldn’t we believe that? We are Americans.
Almost thirty years later those words have never been more true.
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
Comment Analysis
Most Comments
Latest Comments
Latest Commented Posts
Most Commented Posts