Clarendon's blog

AP to Young People: Ask Not What Obama Can Do For You, But What You Can Do For Obama

In a total perversion of John F. Kennedy's call to patriotism, Martha Irvine of the Associated Press has scolding rebuke to young Obama voters, telling them that a select few are looking at their "20-something peers sitting back and letting the president do the work for them." Ask not what Obama can do for you, Generation Y, ask what you can do for Obama.

For shame, young Obamanauts, you who were sent over the moon at the election of Barack Obama last November. Have you so quickly forgotten your call to service, your devotion and obedience to Hope and Change? Your Dear Leader is in trouble, and you are ignoring the promise you made to stop the rise of the oceans and the changing of the seasons, as well as your pledge to support the government requiring you to purchase health insurance or be fined hundreds of dollars.

But Ms. Irvine isn't just scolding the youth of America. She also boldly dares to suggest to the President that he could be doing more to reach out to his young followers, and helpfully quotes a political science professor at La Salle University who fondly and wistfully recalls the fall of 2008, when students harangued non-believers into attending rallies (she calls the practice "dorm-storming") and when they danced in the streets after the election. The lamenting of the elders fairly leaps off the page. If only The One would turn his benevolent and loving eye towards Youth once more, then the army of the idealistic that failed to change society in the '60's could see their fight won by the next generation.

And what of the consequences should the next generation fail? Irvine warns ominously that college graduates are about to encounter all of the real world problems they've been avoiding by not fully supporting Change to the best of their abilities. She seems to be suggesting that if the kids don't want to be homeless, sick, and living in six inches of seawater from global warming that it's time they go from being mere voters to "responsible citizen"(s).

Yes, apparently the idea of responsible citizenship now extends towards blindly supporting the person you voted for, which I don't recall being the case back when Dubya was in the White House. I guess it's just one of those funny things that happen when liberals return to power.

What Irvine and the others forget is that "Generation Y" didn't vote for Obama because they have blind devotion, they voted for him because he's cool. The cool factor doesn't go nearly as far when it comes to policy activism. Just look at the Tea Party movement. There's a lot of passion and dedication, but (it has to be said)there's a definite lack of hipster cool. If Irvine is lamenting the fact that the Glenn Beck crowd is turning out by the tens of thousands, while young supporters of the President are slacking, she may want to think about this: many in the Tea Party movement feel that Glenn Beck does a good job of speaking for them, while many young supporters of President Obama feel he does a good job of speaking to them. It's the difference between an activist mob and an adoring public.

The Tactical Disadvantage Facing Conservatives

Thisx story in the Washington Post highlights what may be one of the biggest tactical problems facing conservatives these days.

When critics lashed out at President Obama for scheduling a speech to public school students this month, accusing him of wanting to indoctrinate children to his politics, his advisers quickly scrubbed his planned comments for potentially problematic wording. They then reached out to progressive Web sites such as the Huffington Post, liberal bloggers and Democratic pundits to make their case to a friendly audience.

The controversy escalated, but by the time it was over, White House advisers thought they had emerged with the upper hand. The speech, they said, was the most-viewed live video on any government Web site in history, and they were pleased with the media coverage of the event.

The Obama administration can think more than one move ahead right now. It's one of the benefits of being the party in power, as well as having a friendly media at your disposal.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are in a power vacuum at the moment. Sure, we have people in leadership positions, but no one person (or even one team) that most conservatives view as "our leader". Coordinating conservatives is almost as difficult as getting Kanye West to take a vow of silence, even in the best of times... and these are not the best of times.

As long as the conservative movement is rudderless, we're not going to get anywhere. Sure, we may make a lot of noise, and even send a lot of people to Washington, D.C. for a passionate protest against... what? Less spending? Less gun control? More freedom? Less immigration? More morality? A return to the free market? We can't even agree on what we're protesting these days.

The march in Washington was sound and fury signifying something, but until there's some coherence and cohesion in the movement, we're going to be lashing out instinctually while our opponents are able to act tactically.

Building Buckley

Patrick Ruffini wonders if we can have Buckley back. The short answer? No. That yacht has sailed off into the sunset, and William F. Buckley won't be coming back. If we want a new Buckley, it's up to us to build one. Frankly, we're failing... not only to build the next Buckley, but to build a conservative movement of our own.

You know, William F. Buckley was 30 years old when he started National Review. He was 35 when Young Americans for Freedom was founded at his home in Sharon, Connecticut. He was 41 when he started Firing Line. People my age (I turned 35 not too long ago) remember Buckley as an older man, and we forget that the leaders we grew up with were our age when they started the modern conservative movement in the 1950's.

Why I'm Not At a Tea Party

I was all set to go to the Washington Tea Party today. I even had my shirt picked out; a picture of Obama wearing a set of mouse ears. I was excited. I was ready. And then I saw a press release of the guest speakers.

First of all, who needs speakers? It's a protest, not a rally. I heard Rush Limbaugh say last week that he was too famous to go to a Tea Party protest, and he was right. Once famous people get involved, they inevitably become the focus of the event. Sadly, in the absence of real famous people, the organizers of the Tea Party protest decided to go with people who could be described as "famous to conservatives." That leads me to the second reason I will not be attending: Alan Keyes is speaking, and Alan Keyes doesn't speak for me.

I shouldn't single Keyes out, even though he's not who I want representing me in the eyes of the media. The truth of the matter is, I don't want Laura Ingraham representing me either, or Grover Norquist, no matter how much I may have in common with their political views. I thought the Tea Party was supposed be about us, which is what made it different. Rush Limbaugh understands this, which is why he wisely stayed away. It's an amazingly selfless act, and one that hasn't been much repeated by others in the conservative community. Why do we need anybody representing us? Isn't the point of all of this for the government to hear from We the People? If anybody is representing us on stage, it should be the local business owner who's going to have to cut jobs because of tax increases, or the police officer who sees good colleagues leaving because of budget shortfalls, shortfalls that aren't relieved by stimulus money. For God's sakes, if people have to speak, let them be people, not pundits.

The Tea Party movement didn't need this, the sad parade of B-list conservative celebrities all too eager to attach their name to the cause. The movement did start organically, even if it was soon co-opted by a political machine that politicizes and makes partisan even the most important of issues. Once that issue becomes just another "conservative" thing, all hope of real victory is lost. It is just something else that conservatives will be mocked for, because that is what we do to our political opponents these days. I imagine there'll be a lot of mocking of our opponents at the Washington Tea Party today, because both sides are equally guilty of the practice.

And yet, the organizers of the D.C. Tea Party invited these pundits to assume leadership, or at least prominence, in the movement. By doing so, I can't help but feel like they've killed something very important. I don't know why they felt it was so important to have partisans play such a large role in today's events. Maybe they simply thought it was a good idea. If so, they were wrong. If this were a liberal rally, it wouldn't be Alan Keyes speaking, it would be Dennis Kucinich. It wouldn't be Laura Ingraham, it would be Rachel Maddow. And conservatives would mock the bejeezus out of it for being a political Woodstock for the lunatic fringe.

I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I am, because I wanted for this to work so badly. The post that finally got me blogging under a pseudonym was probably a little too rah-rah in retrospect. Perhaps I'm guilty of idealistically thinking that something "of the people" could remain "of the people" in this day and age. If so, I'm likely incurable, because I'm still looking for ways to turn this around.

There is one thing I've come up with. The organizers of the Tea Party have scheduled the next event for July 4th. Let all Americans, of every political stripe, feel welcome with others who share their concern and disgust over the prospect of continued government bailouts. Leave the polarizing figures behind. You don't need them for this. There's a lot at stake here, and we can't afford to screw it up.

At the end of my first blog post, I quoted from Joseph Warren's speech commemorating the Boston Massacre in 1775, just a few weeks before the first shots were fired on Lexington Green. His words are worth repeating.

On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important question, on which rest the happiness and liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves.

 cross posted at thenewpamphleteers.blogspot.com/

 

Liberal is the New Tory

Obama and his ilk aren't really providing hope and change. In fact, they're just providing a lot more of the same old, same old (enough same old, same old to bankrupt us as a matter of fact). All of the bloated social programs will be inflating further. The economic handcuffs on small businesses and innovators will get tighter. Sure, there'll be new policies, but all of them are based on the idea that the American people need to keep sucking at the government teat, instead of the ideal that we can and should be responsible for ourselves. The real revolutionaries these days are the conservatives. We're the ones who want something we don't have. We are the rebels of responsibility. We believe in a federal government that doesn't try to be all things to all people. We believe there are still matters of conscience and spheres of influence where the government need not interfere. Yes, we want a government that listens to us, but we also want something of ourselves. We want to be a country where are worthy of exercising independence. We believe that actions have consequences, that bad behavior shouldn't be rewarded, and that frugality is a better alternative to living beyond your means. We don't want to see people on the street, but we don't want to subsidize someone living in a nicer house than we own or rent. Like it or not, these are pretty revolutionary ideas these days. So, if conservatives are the new revolutionaries, that can only mean one thing. Liberal is the new Tory. crossposted from The New Pamphleteers.

 

An American Plea

 

            Is this what it felt like to live in the colonies of America in the summer of 1765?  Back then, Parliament had just passed the Stamp Act, which taxed the colonists for the first time.  The government was adopting bold new powers that would affect every American, and America responded. 

 

            Patrick Henry was 29 years old in 1765.  A freshman legislator in Virginia, he took to the floor of the House of Burgesses just nine days into his term and denounced the Stamp Act with such passion and fervor that the Speaker, John Robinson, pounded his gavel and cried “Treason”!  Robinson was joined by other members of the House in accusing Henry of the vile crime of treason, but Henry’s resolves against taxation actually passed the House. 

 

            That story leads me to believe that we aren’t re-living history.  When Congress passed the recent spending bill, the rhetoric on both sides was heated, to be sure.  Still, neither side called the other treasonous.  The Democrats who supported the bill were called misguided, the bill itself was called a measure that would bankrupt our children, but the legislators, we were told, were simply trying their best.  On the Republican side, they were accused of obstinacy and partisanship, but their opposition wasn’t deemed treasonous. 

 

            Our current state is more perilous than that of the colonies in 1765, yet we seem too frightened to face the possibility that we are now called, as our forefathers were, to defend freedom with every bit of air in our lungs, every muscle and tendon of our body, and every measure of our honor.  It is a terrifying proposition:  the government of, for, and by the People isn’t listening to us, nor are they listening to the wise counsel of those who came before them.  It is a duly elected government, but is it really “of the People” anymore? 

 

            Let’s be honest with ourselves and with each other.  The path we are forging is completely contrary to the ideals and principles of this great nation.  The hero of the earlier anecdote, Patrick Henry, once said, “The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”  Yet Congress just approved nearly 800,000,000,000 in spending without anybody being able to read the legislation.  The transactions of our rulers were concealed from us.  In that same speech, Henry said, “it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?”  No, it is not.  We must recognize the truth of our situation, no matter how hard it is to do so. 

 

            Samuel Adams, another member of the Founding generation, once said, ““What property can the colonists be conceived to have, if their money may be granted away by others, without their consent?”  We may have “consented” to this massive spending by electing our representatives, but how can our children, who will themselves be burdened by this overwhelming and crippling debt, have consented to the taking of their money?  We are committing an act of treachery upon our children and grandchildren that would have ashamed our ancestors. 

 

            Those men and women, it must be noted, were not railing against “the British”.  They were arguing against their own government, and the individuals who made up their government.  They were not opposed to a Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister who pushed for taxation without representation.  They were not opposed to the idea of Parliament, but the members of Parliament who voted in favor of taxing the colonies for revenue without consent of those being taxed.  For more than a decade, they were fighting for their rights as Englishmen, not as free Americans.  They weren’t yet arguing for independence, but for real hope and change in their own established government.  Do we not possess that same inherent right? 

 

            In 1775, just weeks before civil unrest erupted into civil war at a small village called Lexington, a young doctor named Joseph Warren stood in front of a crowd of Bostonians.  It was the anniversary of the Boston Massacre, and the South Meeting House was crowded, not only with residents, but also with officers from His Majesty’s Army.  They were given the best seats in the house that day, sitting just feet away from where Warren stood.  Looking down from the lectern at the men he would soon face in armed combat, Warren spoke to them and the thousands of ordinary men and women, the Joe Six-Packs of their day, about the sacrifices their forefathers had made in order to establish a life free from tyranny. 

 

“Even anarchy itself, that bugbear held up by the tools of power (though truly to be deprecated) is infinitely less dangerous to mankind than arbitrary government. Anarchy can be but of short duration; for when men are at liberty to pursue that course which is most conducive to their own happiness, they will soon come into it, and from the rudest state of nature, order and good government must soon arise. But tyranny, when once established, entails its curses on a nation to the latest period of time; unless some daring genius, inspired by heaven, shall, unappalled danger, bravely form and execute the arduous design of restoring liberty and life to his enslaved, murdered country.”

 

            This country had not one daring genius in those days, but a whole host of men and women who were determined to fight for the liberty of themselves and their posterity.  Warren himself lost his life a few months later at the Battle of Bunker Hill, leaving his four children orphans.  With our population now more than 300 times that of our ancestors, imagine how many daring geniuses exist among us today! 

 

            We are not yet enslaved, though we have traveled a long way on the road to serfdom.  We are not yet subsumed by a brave new world of collectivism.  We still possess the means to fight, and yet I fear we lack the will to do so.  I myself am too afraid to put my name to these words, because I have no idea what kind of backing this will receive.  I am not worthy to compare myself to the least of the Founding generation, and yet I keep looking to them for guidance and inspiration.  These men and women staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor on the idea that liberty was worth arguing for, worth defending, and eventually worth dying for if necessary.  Has that idea truly died a quiet death without us noticing?  Or may we, like good Dr. Warren, help nurse our country back to health? 

 

            I have recently seen talk of Revolution, which to me seems far too premature.  Despite what most Americans seem to believe, the Revolution did not spontaneously begin with the Battle of Lexington and Concord.  There was a reason why thousands of regular men felt compelled to stop their work, grab their musket, and march several miles to shoot at His Majesty’s troops.  You don’t get that conviction over the course of a night, and we are far from that level of societal conviction. 

 

            Yet if history repeats itself, how far down the road to Revolution are we?  John Adams said that the seeds of Revolution were first planted in 1750, when a preacher named Jonathan Mayhew delivered a sermon called “A Discourse on Unlimited Submission”.  In it Mayhew argues that submission to arbitrary government or a government that does not listen to the People actually aids in the promotion of tyranny.  To maintain the status quo, “would be to join with the sovereign in promoting the slavery and misery of that society, the welfare of which, we ourselves, as well as our sovereign, are indispensably obliged to secure and promote, as far as in us lies.”  In other words, when the government begins to ignore the People, apathy is aiding and abetting the abuse of power.  Have we even begun to recognize that basic concept?

 

            How do the People begin to take the power back?  First, we have to recognize that while revolution’s not the answer, the People (and that’s you and me) always retain the right of veto power.  If it’s important enough, we can say no.  At that point, it’s up to our Government to listen. 

 

            The fact is, our President has decided that his election was a mandate for this type of suicidal spending, despite the blatant break with the bedrock principles of liberty and freedom enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.  So far, he has not shown he has been willing to listen.  Therefore, we must become louder.  We can do that in two ways;  the first by growing our numbers, and secondly by maximizing the power of our own voice. 

 

            The internet is a wonderful conduit of communication, but it has replaced far too much of the face-to-face contact that we need with our friends and neighbors if we are to ever establish real opposition to the destructive policies we seek to challenge.  We must re-establish those local bonds, forge local friendships and connections, and not rely so much on the internet, which, when the dominant means of communication, leads to impersonal and distant relationships.  The patriots had newspapers and pamphlets to be sure, but equally as important were the Sons of Liberty chapters and other organizations that spread throughout the colonies. 

           

            Get together with your friends and neighbors one night a week and talk politics.  Organize yourselves… pick one person to run for city council, or other local office and work for that candidate tirelessly.  At the same time, use the internet to communicate and coordinate with others on a local, regional, and national basis.  Use social networking sites to develop, not augment your existing social relationships.  Establish a “Sons of Liberty”-type organization in your neighborhood, your town, your county, and state, but be sure to maintain the local and personal connection.  Yes, it will occupy a lot of time.  It may require you to stop watching as much television, or to not spend so much time on the computer.  But that’s a small sacrifice for a much larger cause.  If we do not do this now, the country we leave our children will be in many ways unrecognizable to the one we grew up in, and I don’t think we will like the changes. 

 

            Recognize that you will have many different ideas on many different social issues, but that is not important.  The politics of Massachusetts were very different than the politics of Virginia, but the two states were stalwarts of resistance in the 1750’s and1760’s.  You need not agree with everything your fellow patriots believe, as long as you all believe that continuing to allow these economic policies to go unchallenged would be an aiding and abetting of the murder of this still-great nation. 

 

            I am convinced that we need to have many more town hall meetings, though I confess to not knowing how best to accomplish such a task.  Still, our elected federal representatives need to hear from us, and it’s far easier for them to come back home to us than it is for us to go them.  Do we demand that Congress return home to hear from their constituents face-to-face before they vote on a bill with a price tag of more than 100,000,000,000?  Would that have a greater effect on our officials than flooding their offices with phone calls and emails? 

 

            It may be that a majority of us lack the will to fight.  We are a soft society these days, after all.  However, we are not required to fight with arms.  We are only required to speak louder than we have, and I believe that there are enough of us who have the will to speak.  We have the will to govern our elected servants with the magnifying glass our ancestors used on their public officials.  Politics is a conversation, and it’s time our officials remembered that We the People have a voice as well.  We have the right to be heard, and our representatives have a duty to listen.             

 

The Anniversary of the Gettysburg Address

135 years ago today, Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettsyburg Address.  Since we're in need of Republican leaders these days, I thought it appropriate to call out one of the big guns.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

 

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

 

There Is No God Problem

Republicans don't have a God problem, though I am becoming convinced that there are some conservatives who have a problem with God. 

Kathleen Parker, in her latest column assails Republicans for allowing the "the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP" to what?  Remain in the party?  Have a seat at the table?  Influence politicians?  

Parker lets the mask slip, however, when she says " the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows".  Now it becomes clear.  This is simply another attack by a self-described intellectual elite on a (sizeable) number of Americans who exasperate her.

I haven't set foot in a church in years, and have no desire to start.  My religious views are, as Parker suggests they should be for all, "in the privacy of my heart", but to suggest that ours is the only way to conduct ourselves in the political sphere isn't just lunacy, it's damning conservatism to irrelevance.  

Where is Ms. Parker's outrage over Barack Obama's plan to ensure that "we are all our brother's keeper", using the government to further his religious beliefs?  Where is Parker's disgust at the formation of left-leaning religious/political groups like We Believe Ohio and We Believe Colorado?  The Democrats are welcoming religious voters, yet Kathleen Parker thinks Republicans need to reject them?

You don't  grow a party by becoming more exclusive.  You don't win elections by alienating millions of Americans.  Kathleen Parker is showing the right way to become irrelevant as a political party, and I can only assume that her intellectual vapidity is worth it as long as the movers and shakers in D.C. can view her as one of those "acceptable conservatives".  

The GOP can be the party of religious diversity, but not at the expense of alienating evangelical Christians.  Thomas Jefferson was as close to a non-believer as you could find among the Founders, but even he recognized that freedom of religion protected the rights of the religious as well as the non-believers.  Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom was written in 1779, during the rise of the Baptist Church in his state.  A decade earlier, the sheriff of Spotsylvania County had jailed four Baptist preachers for 40 days.  In 1771, Edmund Pendleton (head of the Caroline County Court and member of the House of Burgesses), watched as the clerk of his court dragged Baptist minister John Waller down the courthouse steps, his head pounding "against the ground, sometimes up, sometimes down" and handed him over to the local sheriff.  After the sheriff whipped the preacher, Waller "in a gore of blood went back singing praise to God, mounted the stage and preached with a great deal of liberty."*

If Jefferson felt that "evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy" Christians shouldn't have a say in politics, one would think he would have mentioned it.  Instead, Jefferson and the founders explicitly protected the religion and speech of radical Christians as well as non-believers.  Perhaps it was because even Jefferson realized that the push for liberty had started with the human desire to worship God as one pleased, and that religious freedom had led to greater human freedom.  Kathleen Parker may want to exorcise religion from the political sphere, but she should at least acknowledge that if our own Founders had done so, this country would be a far different place... one undeniably worse than it is today. 

If Kathleen Parker had advocated coming up with a compelling secular argument for things like traditional marriage and pro-life positions, I would heartily agree with her.  It's not enough for a Republican to base their arguments on religion. Conservative principles shouldn't work only for evangelical Christians.  Conservatism needs to work for every American, but  that's a matter of messaging, not changing what it means to be a conservative. 

 

*The Unknown American Revolution, Gary Nash

No Winners At The Moment

 Conservatives should never ignore the lessons of history.  After all, one of the things that makes us conservative is that we recognize there are lessons to be learned from the victories and defeats of our forefathers.

"There were no winners among Federalists. The Republicans were ecstatic."  These words from historian Edward Larson describe the aftermath of Alexander Hamilton’s public letter regarding the “conduct” of John Adams, during the election of 1800. Hamilton and Adams, remember, were both Federalists. This was a savaging of the head of the ticket by a small-minded foe who put personal animosity ahead of party unity. Hamilton, in essence, decided he would rather see Thomas Jefferson elected President over John Adams. 
 
In the letter, Hamilton spared nothing. 
 
The statement, which has been made, shews that Mr. ADAMS has committed some positive and serious errors of Administration ; that in addition to these, he has certain fixed points of character which tend naturally to the detriment of any cause of which he is the .chief, of any Administration of which he is the head ; that by his ill humors and jealousies he has already divided and distracted the supporters of the Government ; that he has furnished deadly weapons to its enemies by unfounded accusations, and has weakened the force of its friends by decrying Some of the most influential of them to the utmost of his power ; and let it be added, as the necessary effect of such conduct, that he has made great progress in undermining the ground which was gained for the government by his predecessor, and that there is real cause to apprehend, it might totter, if not fall, under his future auspices.”
 
A few of Hamilton’s most ardent supporters stood by their man, though most High Federalists privately thought Hamilton was crazy to release a pamphlet before the election. Some of them even urged him not to do so. Larson points out in his book, “A Magnificent Catastrophe” that Hamilton biographer Ron Chernow believes in writing the letter and making it public, “Hamilton committed a form of political suicide that blighted the rest of his career.” 
 
We didn’t have Alexander Hamilton in 2008. Instead, we had David Brooks. We had Peggy Noonan (who, like Hamilton, still asked people to support the candidate they had just savaged). The biggest political sin committed by these pundits wasn’t their criticism of Sarah Palin, it was their timing. Let’s not forget that Hamilton accused Adams of having a temper that could harm the country, but Hamilton’s pride was just as dangerous.  His ill-timed screed helped fracture a party and eventually led to his death in a duel with Vice President Aaron Burr. Could the same be said of some in our chattering class today?
 
I don’t occupy a heightened perch from which to proclaim my opinions. Maybe that’s why I’m tempted to shout, “A Pox on both your houses!” to the various factions squabbling over the future of the Republican Party. Duty, however, prevents me from silencing myself or turning away from the fight. I’m obligated to my children, if no one else, to attempt to be heard over the cacophonous in-fighting. I don’t want them to grow up in a world where conservatism has made itself irrelevant.  
 
From where I sit in a suburban cul-de-sac, the fight isn’t over whether to “reform” or “restore” conservatism. The fight is actually larger than that. The thing that draws fiscal conservatives and social conservatives together is this: Modern liberalism is anathematic to both fiscal conservatives (who can’t abide by the bloated government fiscal liberalism promotes) and social conservatives (who can’t abide by the government-assisted loosening of cultural mores). We don’t have to like it, but if we want to win, we have to tolerate it. The other option is to bring about the painful death of the Republican Party and wait for one party rule to run its natural course. The last time that happened was in 1800, when the Republican-Democrats won the White House and didn’t relinquish control for 36 years. When they finally lost, it wasn’t to a Federalist. That party had long since died. Instead, the Whigs had formed to take their place. 
 
Is this what we wish for ourselves; to argue amongst ourselves over who best can lead the party while the electorate looks on in disgust, to fight over who gets to be the less irrelevant of the Republican factions? Are we so stupid as to ignore our history, rife with warnings from our leaders about what happens when we allow issues to divide us? Benjamin Franklin once said, “We must hang together, or we will surely hang separately.” Abraham Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” We must find common ground or be torn apart. 
 
With that self-evident truth before us, the question then becomes how do we find that common ground? First and foremost, prioritize. Don’t think about what your biggest issue is, but rationally decide what the biggest issues are in our country today. It’s evident the number one issue for most Americans right now is the economy, and Republicans have seemingly no message other than “don’t raise taxes”. That simply isn’t enough. We need to be able to provide concrete examples of policies that will provide stability in the economy and opportunity for all. 
 
This is where the “reformers” can help. We need new ideas based on sound conservative principles. We don’t have to come up with just a macroplan for the nation’s economy. We can and should develop policy proposals that are complementary of a national plan, but that are specifically targeted to the middle class, urban poor, rural poor, and others. If these voters feel that the Republican Party has nothing to offer them, they will stay away.  Conservatism should work for everyone, but right now there are many Americans who don’t see conservative policies as beneficial or even relevant to them. We ignore those voters at our own peril, and possibly our own demise.

 

Syndicate content