Is It Time for a Conservative Walk-Out?

Show me a party that gets to Regan conservatism and I am in. I vote my principles, not a blind party vote.

 

If you look at the factions that are beginning to fight within the Republican party it will be interesting to see whose 'conservative values' come forth as the new leaders.

 

Same with the dems. I think you have a lot of hardcore libs that are going to be disappointed with Obama's moderate positions.

 

Before continuing this discussion it might be well to consider just what constitutes "true Conservatism", that is with a capital C. The following article by columnist Holmes Alexander was published 30 or more years ago and posted on this forum some years ago. It presents the best definition of true Conservative philosophy that I have read. It is appropriate for all especially those who are confused about what constitutes the true Conservative philosophy.

OldRegular

‘The Bobbs-Merrill Company, book publishers of the American Heritage Series, have acted better late than never in recognizing the conservative movement that has been booming along for nearly two decades now. The Heritage Series has previously put out books on the New Left and Black Nationalism, agrarian revolt and civil disobedience, literary radicalism and the libertarian theory, and now "belatedly," as the editors admit, they have made William Buckley the collector and commentator of an anthology called "Did You Ever See a Dream Walking” which gives excerpts from the writings of 25 conservative authors.

As might be expected, the best passages in the volume are those written by Bill Buckley himself. You won't find here any thumbnail definition of conservatism, but will be shown samples of what it is, and be warned away from what it is not. The samplings show that conservatism, among much else, is a form of non violent dissent against — well, materialism, statism, godlessness, immorality.

Conservatism has a lot to do with free enterprise, little to do with Big Business. Conservatism is a discipline, and thus the enemy of permissiveness It is law-and-order, but not repression. It is good manners and social responsibility, but it has few rules — stops short of maudlin pity for the poor and the minorities. It regards Communism as an unmitigated evil, calls Fascism its “illegitimate” brother, and treats Socialism as an obnoxious poor relation of both.

Conservatism is individualism, which is to say, personal freedom. The basic freedom, as Gary Wills writes in this book, is that of the human will. It cannot be killed unless the man himself is killed or reduced to a sub-human condition, as has been done in both ancient and modern times by tyrannous states.

But the individual has an obligation to use his freedom. never to abuse it, as some of our demonstrators of today have abused and debased the freedom of speech.

The ideal state, says the conservative, is one which recognizes that freedom is not given to anybody by his government, but is protected by the laws of the land, as well as by the policeman on the corner. The state, as the conservative sees it, ought to be the servant and the convenience of the free citizen.

The state is not even a leader, or should not be because it always fails in such efforts except in time of war. Dr. Milton Friedman. for example, points out that when the government sets out to help the I poor by passing minimum wage laws, it ends up creating unemployment. The welfare laws have merely perpetuated the poverty and idleness of the supposed beneficiaries. While no conservative could be an anarchist, he would eternally be for a government that is as unobtrusive as possible.

A good many conservatives — two or three in this volume — came to their present beliefs by way of Communism, the god that failed them. Not all of them embraced the Christian religion by way of reaction. As Buckley notes, it is possible for a conservative to disbelieve in a personal God, but it is impossible for a conservative to despise God. The surest synonym, — if there is any — for conservatism is morality. A man cannot be a materialist, or an egocentric, or utterly ruthless, or rudely arrogant and still qualify as a conservative.

Thus in a famous review of "Atlas Shrugged” Whittaker Chambers, then associate editor of the National Review, read Miss Ayn Rand, the author, completely out of the conservative movement. "Out of a lifetime of reading," Chambers wrote, "I can recall no other book in which the tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained." And the National Review itself publicly excommunicated Robert Welch first because the editors found his conspiratorial theories to be unsound, and second because to keep silent about Mr. Welch under the circumstances might seem to give consent to his unsound ideas.

I said that conservatism is a dissent, and you will find in this book that it is a dissent against ideas and persons that attempt to enslave the individual.’

 

I'm for it.

 

No thanks... I plan on continuing the fight in the Conservative Revolution. It's not about a party but it is about principles...

The blue-bloods and moderates just lost another election... now is the time to fight the good fight to regain the heart of our party!

 

I do as well. However I am a pragmatist. The ground lost over the Bush years will pale in comparison to the ground we'll loose if we start a new party from the ground up. It would set the movement back a whole generation.

 

I don't think so. If the new party gets the votes it could happen quick. However, we have lost so much ground over the last eight years it will be like starting over any way we do it.

 

I think the better solution is to let the moderates form their own party.

Think about it, the liberals can have the Democratic label.

You conservatives can keep the Republican label.

Then the rest of us can form something in the middle which is pretty much what we do today. Except we are forced to choose one of your parties each election in the booth. It would be nice to have a party for us folks in the center.

sorry to post where I wasn't invited or was asked not to.

 

Basically I agree to work within the party structure. Rev Mitchell also has a point. Within the existing structure, we need a total transformation. Since 1988, conservative principles has slipped from the Republican Party starting with Bush the First, then Bush the Second. There was a brief comeback in 1994 when the Republicans took over the Congress, but quickly faded.

I am not sure how to get rid of lobbyists and the influence of Wall Street, corporate thugs, and the trail of money, but they must go. It must be a party that serves the American people first and only.

It is going to take new leaders that are truly conservative, and govern by those principles. If this election does not teach us to stop nominating and electing pseudo, vote pandering conservatives, we will contiune to lose, and the country will contiunue to drift left.

 

We kept Mitch McConnell.

Also, a number of the '06 dems who ran as conservatives have actually voted against Pelosi & reed on some occasions.

But since America is prejudiced against third parties, it would be great to get rid of some of these guys.say to them that the next time they cross the aisle, stay over there.......

 

Mitch almost lost. I came really close to voting against him because of the bailout bill. After studying the Democrat opposition, I changed my mind and voted for him.

 

..and we won't again.

 

With all of the third party choices equallyin 1%, we will never see it in our lifetimes. It's best to reform the republican party, IMO.