Comments on: Not Another “Conservative” Bush, Please. Thanks.

By: Pauli

Pauli — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:47:12 +0000

So I’ll submit the point that invocation of Goldwater’s name in the post was a poor word choice.

I think that’s probably a good way to put it. I’m pretty sure that Russell Kirk didn’t believe in UFOs or want to legalize marijuana.

So the real lesson is, I shouldn’t hope for Republicans to ever be anything close to libertarian, because that doesn’t win.

Even Ron Paul has moved somewhat away from libertarianism with his moderated views on abortion and border sovereignty. Hell, I think even the Libertarian Party itself has moved away from what some of the nuts I went to college with were talking about.

I think you’re being soft on the religious right though. “Annoying”? It’s a hell of a lot more than “annoying.”

The term “religious right” is mainly in use by the media and liberals and it encompasses a lot, from nuts like John Hagee to visionaries like Richard John Neuhaus. Putting up with a long ad hoc prayer by a Baptist minister at the March for Life is merely annoying. But I’ll agree that Pat Robertson running a Quixotic campaign which virually handed us George H. W. Bush over Jack Kemp is more than annoying. But that’s politics & the freedom to be stupid at work.

By: Travis Prinzi

Travis Prinzi — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:07:10 +0000

So the real lesson is, I shouldn’t hope for Republicans to ever be anything close to libertarian, because that doesn’t win. Which I already knew.

So I’ll submit the point that invocation of Goldwater’s name in the post was a poor word choice.

I think you’re being soft on the religious right though. “Annoying”? It’s a hell of a lot more than “annoying.”

By: Pauli

Pauli — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:58:04 +0000

When Goldwater became a vocal opponent of social conservative issues circa 1990 he was not just showing his true colors but casting aspersions on a winning coalition strategy. So what if he was probably more of a “purist” than Reagan to the libertarian types? That and ten cents got him Arizona and five southern states. The fact is that pure libertarianism scares the sh*t out of most people. So you didn’t see wagons full of Goldwater Democrats (although I suppose she’d be considered in the running) like there were Reagan Democrats, people who believed in the importance of national strength and religious faith and morality, not just a more sound economic policy.

I have much respect for David Frum–more than some of the raging talkers like Mark Levin–and some of his views and concerns, but when I hear/read him I always wonder why he didn’t he learn the lesson of the Goldwater defeat which, to me, is that fiscal issues aren’t enough to win nationally. The prejudice of the guys who want to marginalize so-cons is much more insidious than some of the extreme antics of the religious right which, admittedly can get annoying. One proof that the tripartite coalition is still strong is that Mike Huckabee pulled in 17 times more actual delegates than Ron Paul did.

By: Travis Prinzi

Travis Prinzi — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:39:50 +0000

But furthermore, I’m not really interested in “retiring” any genuine expression of conservatism. That’s sort of the point of the post. I was expressing some agreement with the need to quit over-doing the Reagan nostalgia, but on the whole, I’m against retiring either the Reagan or the Goldwater stories.

By: Travis Prinzi

Travis Prinzi — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:33:22 +0000

Pauli, not trying to keep alive any Goldwater “narrative.” Just pointing to someone who more consistently principled. I don’t much care how big someone wins if they don’t stay consistent and steadfast on actually downsizing and limiting government.

By: Pauli

Pauli — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:05:56 +0000

Travis, can we finally retire the Goldwater narrative, plz? Goldwater didn’t just lose, he lost BIG. Reagan won big which is what you have to do first before you can move the country in the direction you want.

By: Black Angus

Black Angus — Fri, 08 May 2009 03:21:57 +0000

I agree. To have the guts to go back to true conservative principles and stick to them would be a powerful message. And more popular than the politicians might think. To muck around with image highlights want politicians want: power. Forget principles, you find the image that gets you elected then you can do what you want.
The problem with conservative principles is when conservatives get into power. Suddenly having power makes you want more of it. Who’s going to legislate less power to themselves?

By: korg20000bc

korg20000bc — Thu, 07 May 2009 08:57:16 +0000

I read AA Jacobs’ The year of Living Biblically recently. He’s trying to live the Bible literally for one year. As he’s going through the commandments and thinking about not having any graven images he makes an interesting observation. Presidential elections would be amazingly different if no images were allowed. And, think of the quality people/leaders who have been or will be missed because they look funny.

By: revgeorge

revgeorge — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:42:09 +0000

Yes, I saw a blurb the other day about how Republican groups are going around trying to get input on rebranding their image. How’s that helpful? Isn’t that just sticking your finger up into the wind to see which way it’s blowing? Shouldn’t they be getting back to core Republican principles? Not that I necessarily agree with those either but it would be a start for them.