The Rise and Fall of the Right

Yes - and pre-1988 there wasn't exactly a religious conservative voting block, either. And Reagan never broke 40 years of Democratic dominance in the House - and certainly didn't smash the general ascendance of Democrats in the legislative arena.

You can make a great case that Bush screwed up that opportunity, that some folks may have more or less helped him do it, but you can't make the case that libertarian conservatism is a majority party.

You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.

The right's preoccupation with red herring issues like flag-burning ammendments, "defense" of marriage, and whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance should have "God" in it takes away from energy that could be devoted to smaller government and strong defense.  This "cultural conservatism" is the reason why I will never be a big "R" Republican. I'm hoping to find like-minded people on this site who seek a new paradigm of conservatism.

Having worked in the DC non-profit sector, I have always believed the libertarian vs. conservative split was much more overplayed than reality. What split the GOP was much more often the Washington, DC poltiticians vs. the grassroots.

America's Future Foundation, LI, Heritage, Cato, FreedomWorks, Americans For Prosperity, etc all came at it from different angles but for the most part we all got along very well and saw that we had the same ultimate goal. Smaller, limited, constitutional government.

Reagan's message was correct.  Santorum's message is why the republican party is such a pathetic mess.

The world hasn't stayed unchanged from President Reagan to Senator Santorum there. Our political opposition has changed. No longer are we opposed by a moderate Democratic party. Our opponents are now fully radicalized, Marxist oppoonents of all our values and principles.

They want to do things nowadays that would have been unthinkable a generation ago. So the battle lines have changed, and sometimes we have to fight for conservativm as distinct from and in opposition to libertarian positions.

Basically, I think Reagan is wrong there. Conservatives and libertarians have much to work together on when it comes to practical policy, but in philosophy we're as different as Presidents Adams and Jefferson (and yes, I count myself with Adams and against Jefferson).

"That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."

Hmmm ... Alcoholics Anonymous has operated on principles of individual autonomy for over 70 years.  I think that it probably would qualify as "successful" and a "culture." 

Libertarian/Conservative/Federalist, or some order of those words. I do believe that we need just enough laws & codes of conduct so that we can enjoy a sane society where economic freedom & individual liberty are protected. What I do in my bedroom or you in yours is no one's business, unless innocents are being hurt. The rub is determining what "just enough" is. I think that we can safely say that government has become too large & intrusive, & there are too many laws & regulations stifling economic freedom & individual liberty. 

Social issues are an important component to conservatism. This goes from educational choice, right to life, and second amendment issues to others. Many issues, such as second amendment, overlap into other "legs" of conservatism (using the stool analogy). Where Republicans in general (leadership - president, house, & senate) have really dropped the ball is on fiscal, economic issues. Republicans & the leadership need to get their fiscal & economic houses in order to come back from this supposed ledge. 

Maybe the problem hasn't been being too socially conservative or too fiscally conservative, but maybe it has been competence.

Katrina, Iraq, and many other problems faced by Republicans from the governing perspective have been a total incompetence not an ideology issue. I believe Americans don't mind limited government rhetoric or bigger government rhetoric, but rather they just want government that works for its limited purposes.

The fall of the Right rests squarely on the fact that they don't know how to communicate their ideas nor how to defend them.  Every time the Left raises their ugly head, the Right rolls over and plays dead.  What the Right needs is a shot of testosterone.

Some examples:

Social Security:  Why can't I direct my contributions into a private fund that will yield more return?  The Democrats scared people into thinking they would lose their money.  Why didn't the Right stand up and say: "Wealth is created by passing money from generation to generation.  With a private account, you can pass your Social Security on to future generations?"

Katrina:  The Left blamed Bush.  But it's not POTUS job to make sure every town has an evacuation plan and is going to stick to it.  The Left also focused solely on New Orleans, yet there was destruction in Mississippi, Alabama and Florida as well.

Global Warming:  Why is this crock of crap still getting mileage?  Why is the Right allowing Congress to force us to use certain types of light bulbs?  Why didn't Al Gore do something about it during his eight years as VP?

The Right doesn't realize they are in a war.  They are dressing for a cocktail party when they should be dressed for battle.