Conservatism Is Victorious, Not Dying
Jim at Music City Bloggers asks the question “Is Conservatism Dying?” He mentions the nomination of McCain as an example, but as much as we conservatives can’t stand McCain, we also couldn’t stand Bush 41, Dole, or Bush 43. We conservatives have a long history of hating our candidates and then voting for them anyway.
He then goes on to cite the popularity of the latest Medicare entitlement and the unpopularity of the war as examples of conservatives losing in the arena of public opinion. He says that the younger generation appears to be more liberal, which is something that seems to be true of all young people, as long as I can remember.
What stood out in Jim’s post though was the following.
Conservatism arose in a time when the marginal tax rate went as high as 70%, the economy was stagnant and the government regulated the price of gasoline, air ines, natural gas, TV and a host of other things. Over the last 30 years a lot has changed. Reagan became President, tax rates were cut and cut again and many things no longer regulated, but at the same time, the world went and changed on us. The evil spectre of Communism died everywhere.
After giving his post the title, “Is Conservatism Dying”, Jim ends up citing examples of how conservatism won. If anything is on life support, it is modern liberalism. It has been 27 years since Ronald Reagan was sworn in, and not only did Reagan transform fiscal policy, and foreign policy, but he transformed modern liberalism. We had eight years of a Democratic President after Reagan, but at no time did that President seek to raise taxes to pre-Reagan levels. Speaking of that President, he was the one that declared “the end of welfare as we know it”. At no time did President Clinton propose price controls or regulation to the extent of the Carter administration. Clinton was also a major advocate of free trade, as evidenced by his signing of NAFTA.
Talk to your average liberal today and none of them will tell you that they want to raise taxes to pre-Reagan levels. All they are really proposing is a return to Clinton era levels. Folks, as much as conservatives complain about taxes being too high and liberals complain about them being too low, things were not that different under Clinton. We are essentially fighting over a few feet in the trenches, the right side of the trenches that is.
Jim goes on to repeat a bunch of Democratic talking points about the global warming hoax and foreign dependence on oil, something caused by liberals who won’t allow us to drill in Alaska, the Rockies, or the Gulf of Mexico. These are the same people who oppose the building of refineries and nuclear power plants. Yet they still have the nerve to complain about foreign dependence on oil.
He ends his post by saying, the times are changing. The times have already changed though. Thank God. Modern liberalism moved right. Perhaps liberals asked themselves “Are we better off now than we were 27 years ago?”
If you voted for Bush 41, Dole, or Bush 43, then you are not conservative, you are Republican and are just as responsible for the downward path of our Republic as any Democrat.
[…] Glen Dean Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and […]
What is currently described as the “conservative movement” bears virtually no resemblance to Barry Goldwater’s conservatism, and has nothing to do with restraining government power or preserving historical values. Instead, it has been transformed into an authoritarian movement which largely attracts personality types characterized by a desire and need to submit to and follow authority based on ideals skillfully indoctrinated unto the masses for one reason only - to demonize the opposition and get votes. Today’s conservative movement is the realm of the “25% ers” - the Bush followers, neoconservatives, and hard-core religious conservatives. Bush and his neocons and theocons have single handedly destroyed the conservative ideology. And, I’ve said this many times, conservatives in general are not aware enough or smart enough to know what is being taken from them. Karl Rove is keenly aware of this fact.
As William Buckley said of Bush: “”If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign… I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, the absence of effective conservative ideology …There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. “
Okay Mickey. It would have been much better to vote for the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate and help elect the Democrat, something that was actually pulled off when “conservatives” voted for Perot in 1992.
If there is only one reason to vote for whoever the GOP nominates, it is judicial appointments. Judicial appointments matter Mickey. So by voting for the Libertarian who is sure to lose, you are effectively nominating Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as opposed to Roberts or Alito.
William, what you are saying is that Bush led us more toward liberalism. That’s what Buckley basically said. That is right, by the way.
If you are a Goldwater fan, why did you not support Fred Thompson?
You said “to demonize the opposition and get votes.” Are you sure you aren’t talking about yourself and the angry wackos that you follow.
Oh and Reagan appointed some Conservatives? ALL Conservatives All the Time? We need Conservatives in the House and they can tell the President and the Courts to mind the constitution.
And Dope Smoking Buckley would be a good on the Bench?
If we have a Democrat as president, then the conservatives will rally against them. If we have a Republican liberal president the conservatives roll over and play dead.
No Reagan wasn’t perfect on appointments, but he was better than any Democrat would have been. If we had followed your advice and the advice of most wacked out paleos or big L libertarians, we would be a nation governed by the Judiciary Branch.
So as long as Conservatives are appointed to the Bench, we can have More Spending, More Government and Less Privacy, Less Sovereignty ?
Where is the line you would draw?
I will not accept this.
Congress can correct the courts and we would not be governed by the Judiciary Branch.
Mr. Dean CONGRESS IS THE KEY!
I don’t like those things either Mickey, but those things are even much more prevalent with Democrats. Congress is the key. True. That’s why it is okay to sacrifice members of Congress that don’t adhere to principles. With Democrats in Congress and a GOP President, you get gridlock, which is good. I called for a Congressional defeat in 2006, and voted against Ms. Blackburn. But the Presidency can not be sacrificed. We must hold our nose. Judicial appointments are too important.
Well at least we agree on Gridlock being Good. later.
[…] Stooksbury has linked to this post, in which I refuted Jim’s statement that conservatism is dying, by declaring it […]