The Death of Conservatism

IrvineRenter_IHB

IrvineRenter_IHB

New member
Perhaps it is too early to write the obituary on Conservatism, but with the resounding defeat the Republicans are going to experience on November 4, the power of conservative ideals to shape public policy is going to be practically non-existent.



The Republicans are the only ones even giving lip service to conservative ideals, and the Republicans will not have the Presidency, they will have a small minority in the House of Representatives, and they will likely have only a bare minority capable of maintaining a filibuster in the Senate. It is only through the filibuster will they have any voice to shape public policy, and it will not be very strong. They guys in the House don't even need to show up.



Conservatives will likely argue that the failure of Republicans was not a failure of Conservatism, but the failure of Republicans who abandoned Conservatism. They may be right, and that portrayal may be accurate, but that will not help them much. If conservatives felt like voices alone in the wilderness before, they will likely have at least two more decades to relive that experience. With the resounding failure of Bush and the Congressional Republicans during his term will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the electorate for quite some time.



In a way I feel bad for them, 4 short years ago, conservative ideologues held all the levers of power in Washington. Now, they will have no power at all.



Look for all the wacky ideas from the far Left to surface over the next two years. Ideas that were buried deep in the liberal psyche when the word "librul" became a dirty word guaranteed to cost anyone so labeled any chance at public office. This landslide election and economic crisis will provide an environment for a dramatic increase in the size and scope of our national government and even deeper intrusion into our lives. Taxes will go up, spending will go up, big entitlement programs will be passed, etc. In short, it will be the worst possible nightmare a Conservative could have, and it will be daily reality for the foreseeable future.
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1225624276]In a way I feel bad for them, 4 short years ago, conservative ideologues held all the levers of power in Washington. Now, they will have no power at all.</blockquote>


Conservative ideologues aren't conservatives. They're fundamentalists. Frankly, that's were they went wrong.
 
I heard this tune being sung in 1992.



Social conservative ideals became the priority while fiscal and government conservative ideals were thrown under the bus by Bush 43. The GOP has a decision to make on which path it is going to follow. The inverse proportion of social conservativism to election wins for the GOP is pretty stark evidence to anyone not pushing the social conservative's agenda. But as a practical matter, it was far easier to implement than actually restraining spending or reducing the size of government.



As for Obama, I truly don't expect him to turn into "Super Liberal Man" overnight, which will probably disappoint those who have interpreted 'change' to mean 'we get everything we want by March '09'. 1994 is too fresh in the mind of Democrats for him to allow his administration to be painted with the same brush as then-President Clinton. Despite what the Left wants to believe, we are a country of moderates and any swing too far to one side or another will result in a power change in the mid-term elections. Running for re-election in 2012 will also keep Obama from drifting too far to the left. In other words, Obama won't be giving the Republicans an opportunity to mount another insurgency in the House or the Senate. But just returning to pre-W policies and positions will be enough to placate those moderates that voted for 'change'. If Obama wins a second term and still has a sizable majority in the House and Senate, then I would expect a massive push to the left as he defines his legacy.



Of course, I could be totally wrong. However, if he goes to far too fast we will be talking about President-elect Palin in 4 years.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1225680122]



Of course, I could be totally wrong. However, if he goes to far too fast we will be talking about President-elect Palin in 4 years.</blockquote>


I seriously doubt the Palin part, but the rest of it is fine. I don't think she stands a primary if you put her next to a, say Romney.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1225681703][quote author="Nude" date=1225680122]



Of course, I could be totally wrong. However, if he goes to far too fast we will be talking about President-elect Palin in 4 years.</blockquote>


I seriously doubt the Palin part, but the rest of it is fine. I don't think she stands a primary if you put her next to a, say Romney.</blockquote>


I suspect that had she been McCain's choice in May rather than the end of August she would have been far more prepared than she was when she hit the national stage. I think if she really holds Presidential aspirations she will spend the next 3 years becoming the most well-educated governor in history. All it takes is winning a rematch with Couric and Gibson and she's a viable contender. It might be a Palin/Romney ticket, but the spot is hers for the taking because she already has the base rooting for her.
 
Because of Palin`s radical ideas on Creationism and Abortion. I would doubt very much if

she could aspire to a nomination for POTUS in 2012. She is way too fringe for mainstream

America. And this defeat for the "Base" type of candidate will further alienate the GOP from taking those types of chances in the future. McCain should have picked Liberman. He would have had a shot at this on Tuesday. Palin was the kiss of death for many like Colin Powell

considering McCains age.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1225682429][ ... she will spend the next 3 years becoming the most well-educated governor in history.</blockquote>


I seriously doubt this. Sadly, one of the firm positions on the current conservative agenda is that of anti-intellectualism. It is about belittling knowledge and celebrating "gutsiness". It is about placing incompetent people at the helm of government so you can blame the government as a whole when it fails. It is about insulting Harvard educated people as elitist instead of admiring their achievements. It is about emotion over intellect.
 
I think the small 'c' conservatives are finally getting to see the reality of hooking their wagons to the Fundamentalists.



The small c's are going to be in the wilderness for a very long time, since they alienated the vast middle of the country from the Repugnant party.



If the small c's had instead embodied the Teddy/Rockefeller version, they would be riding high, since the idea of personal liberatarianism plus fiscal/government conservativism is where I perceive the vast middle of the US voting population to be. But instead, they shrunk the appeal of the Repugs so that it now is the party of haters.



If you are a small c, and want to have an impact for the next 20 years, you are much better off forming the center/right of the Democratic party.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1225682429][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1225681703][quote author="Nude" date=1225680122]



Of course, I could be totally wrong. However, if he goes to far too fast we will be talking about President-elect Palin in 4 years.</blockquote>


I seriously doubt the Palin part, but the rest of it is fine. I don't think she stands a primary if you put her next to a, say Romney.</blockquote>


I suspect that had she been McCain's choice in May rather than the end of August she would have been far more prepared than she was when she hit the national stage. I think if she really holds Presidential aspirations she will spend the next 3 years becoming the most well-educated governor in history. All it takes is winning a rematch with Couric and Gibson and she's a viable contender. It might be a Palin/Romney ticket, but the spot is hers for the taking because she already has the base rooting for her.</blockquote>


Dan Quayle used to talk like this too. When he got his chance to run in 1996, he couldn't garner any support in the primaries and quickly gave up all further political ambitions. Like Palin, he was incompetent, and everyone knew it. Notoriety does not equal competence and electability.
 
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1225702770]I think the small 'c' conservatives are finally getting to see the reality of hooking their wagons to the Fundamentalists.



The small c's are going to be in the wilderness for a very long time, since they alienated the vast middle of the country from the Repugnant party.



If the small c's had instead embodied the Teddy/Rockefeller version, they would be riding high, since the idea of personal liberatarianism plus fiscal/government conservativism is where I perceive the vast middle of the US voting population to be. But instead, they shrunk the appeal of the Repugs so that it now is the party of haters.



If you are a small c, and want to have an impact for the next 20 years, you are much better off forming the center/right of the Democratic party.</blockquote>
Keep dreaming. If Nixon didn't detroy the Republicans, the combination of Bush followed by Obama won't either. The "small c's" would be more likely to join the Libertarians before joining the Democrats.
 
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1225702770]If you are a small c, and want to have an impact for the next 20 years, you are much better off forming the center/right of the Democratic party.</blockquote>


Unlikely, the Dems will be riding high and veering farther left. Being a conservative democrat will be a losing proposition.



Being a libertarian Republican however, will at least have the advantage of the Far Right fringe that dominated pandering having been freshly spanked. (Hopefully, as I still have my doubts about all those undecideds...)
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1225703945]Dan Quayle used to talk like this too. When he got his chance to run in 1996, he couldn't garner any support in the primaries and quickly gave up all further political ambitions. Like Palin, he was incompetent, and everyone knew it. Notoriety does not equal competence and electability.</blockquote>
Dan Quayle, after 4 years as VP, was still incompetent. He couldn't raise money because that hadn't changed even after 4 years of opportunity. In contrast, Palin had little reason to think she would ever have to learn much more than what it takes to run Alaska. I also don't think the comparison is accurate on another level; Dan Quayle made John Kerry and Al Gore look like the Festrunk brothers from SNL. Palin, on the other hand is both personable and (relatively) attractive which gives her an edge. Granted, as I said before, she has to prove herself on the national stage and any failure will doom her to be Caribou Barbie forever.
 
I believe that the backlash caused by the blame that will be placed on Palin for hurting rather than helping the Republican ticket will make it very difficult for her to launch a serious run for the White House anytime soon. She may step it up and end up in Washington in some capacity in four years or less but it will be a while before people forget this disastrous campaign. I really don't think she's the one to blame, just a very short-sighted decision on the part of McCain's campaign.
 
[quote author="tmare" date=1225711749]I believe that the backlash caused by the blame that will be placed on Palin for hurting rather than helping the Republican ticket will make it very difficult for her to launch a serious run for the White House anytime soon. She may step it up and end up in Washington in some capacity in four years or less but it will be a while before people forget this disastrous campaign. I really don't think she's the one to blame, just a very short-sighted decision on the part of McCain's campaign.</blockquote>
It's possible she gets blamed. I think it's more likely that the Bluebloods blame McCain for picking a newcomer and wrecking his own campaign, while true conservatives will blame him for abandoning conservative values in favor of pandering. As a conservative Republican, he lost my vote for the latter reason. Palin helped his fundraising and probably conservative turn-out. She didn't help woo the undecideds, but Obama's lead would be much larger if she hadn't energized the base. I think she escapes blame from everyone but those who fear what/who she represents.
 
Regardless of political preferences... I would think anyone educated and financially stable would be wary of "a dramatic increase in the size and scope of our national government and even deeper intrusion into our lives."
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1225724702]Regardless of political preferences... I would think anyone educated and financially stable would be wary of "a dramatic increase in the size and scope of our national government and even deeper intrusion into our lives."</blockquote>




why do you think that? do you also think that we should do away with Medicare?
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1225724702]Regardless of political preferences... I would think anyone educated and financially stable would be wary of "a dramatic increase in the size and scope of our national government and even deeper intrusion into our lives."</blockquote>


GW Bush just trashed this country. He made the government and its huge debt and intrusion

into our personal lives more than any other president in history.

Unnecessary and fraudulent war and a administration of deceit. Our children will be paying taxes on the mistakes this functional moron made in the last eight years.



And you wonder why the Republican Party is going to have its azz handed to it tomorrow night.
 
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1225764619][quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1225724702]Regardless of political preferences... I would think anyone educated and financially stable would be wary of "a dramatic increase in the size and scope of our national government and even deeper intrusion into our lives."</blockquote>




why do you think that? do you also think that we should do away with Medicare?</blockquote>
I am wary of the phrases "dramatic increase" and "deeper intrusion".



There are some things we need the government for... but consitutionally... there are many we don't... especially at the federal level.



Which brings me to some confusion about "liberals". Most of the "hardcore" liberals I talk to are all about big government, social programs, national health plans etc etc... basically the government taking care of a large portion of our lives with a large portion of our income. Yet when it comes to life choices like sexual orientation, abortion etc etc... they don't want the government to dictate that.



I would prefer my own social freedom AND financial responsibility.



EDIT: Oh... and this doesn't mean Republicans/conservatives have it right either. They are just as government spendy and too restrictive on life choices. Like one other poster put it... this country needs a party that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
 
<em>Yet when it comes to life choices like sexual orientation</em>



Sorry, nit picking here.......FYI, I didn't choose it.....it chose me. Sexual orientation is not a preference or a choice. It is ...simply...an orientation. Hard wired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top