0 comment Tuesday, September 23, 2014 | admin
Chuck Baldwin asked this question last week:
Is 2008 The Year Conservatives Abandon The GOP?
[And just off the top of my head, I would say that the answer is an unequivocal YES. given the disappointing batch of faux 'conservatives' who are being presented to us as presidential material.
The bad news is: there may be far fewer conservatives in America than many of us think.]
Here is an excerpt from Baldwin's article:
It is no hyperbole to say that conservatives throughout America are extremely disappointed and disillusioned with the national Republican Party. This discouragement is only deepened as they peruse the field of prominent candidates being trotted out as "frontrunners."
It appears that conservatives will be asked to choose between the chameleon Mitt Romney, the pro-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens John McCain, and philanderers Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. A few conservatives seem slightly excited that former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson is mulling entrance into the presidential race. However, a closer inspection of his voting record finds him to be just another globalist neocon, who would do little to change things in Washington, D.C. For example, Americans for Better Immigration gives him a puny career grade of "C."
Now, given this last paragraph by Chuck Baldwin, check out the Presidential poll at Right on the Right.
I notice the enthusiastic, almost euphoric response to Fred Thompson's candidacy; who knew that Thompson had so many zealous admirers, or that he is the knight on a white horse who will save conservatism? Maybe the voters and commenters at Right on the Right know something that I don't know, because my assessment of Thompson, based on what I could find about his voting record when he last held office, was rather lackluster. I agree with Baldwin that he would represent more of the same failed neocon policies, and I note that his report card on immigration accorded him only a 'C.' That C is not for conservative, in my book.
Baldwin further spells out the dilemma faced by the grassroots conservatives in the GOP:
The Republican Party's unwillingness to advance a genuine conservative has left millions of grassroots Republicans on the verge of leaving the GOP. For example, a poll at the recent CPAC meeting found the "overwhelming majority of conservatives displeased with the leadership of the Republican Party, and most conservatives scowl at the thought of having to vote for Rudoph Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney." '
I have had my ear to the ground, as far as the presidential race is concerned, and I am baffled by the fact that a solid majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to amnesty and 'comprehensive immigration reform' or a 'guest worker program' or a 'path to citizenship.' Most Americans at this point are savvy enough not to fall for the double-talk and the euphemisms, and most of us know the politicians are trying to pull the wool over our eyes with these various verbal sleights-of-hand. Yet at the same time, I am hearing a distressing number of Republicans all ready to vote for Rudy, or Mitt, or Fred Thompson, apparently. And then there are always a few who actually think Newt Gingrich is Mr. Conservative, oblivious to the fact that he speaks with a forked tongue on the amnesty/borders issue. He parses his words carefully, trying to sound pro-enforcement, but at the same time, preaches the usual PC platitudes, carefully treading the line, not too far to the right.
So where is the disconnect? Why are people who seem to have certain conservative principles and inclinations so eager to compromise the principles and vote for another open borders guy like Giuliani or a waffler like Romney? Or settle for a guy like Thompson with a lukewarm grade on immigration?
The usual weak excuse given is that 'we can't be purists', and we can't get everything we want in a candidate. There is no perfect candidate. Fair enough, at least it is true up to a point. But some things ought not to be negotiable; some things are so important that we don't compromise on those vital issues, while we might do so on the inconsequential matters.
But how can any real conservative be willing to compromise on the protection of our borders, and on the right to our national sovereignty, and the sovereignty of the will of the majority in this country? By accepting the selling-out of our country and our culture for the sake of cheap labor or globalist designs, we are being asked to accept the loss of America as we have known it.
It needs to be said again: no conservative would favor sweeping changes to our country, irrevocable changes, which would result from amnesty and continued mass immigration. No conservative would be in favor of any policy which goes against the sovereign will of the American majority. This is just not consistent with conservatism, in any way, shape, or form. So anybody who supports amnesty, mass immigration in our present circumstances, and globalism, is not a conservative, no matter what he calls himself.
Giuliani enjoys a lot of support based on his supposedly masterful job of handling the post-9/11 crisis in New York City. But in the wake of 9/11, the man still supported the 'sanctuary city' policy for NYC, in which illegal immigrants are exempted from any consequences of their illegal presence in our country. How can anyone think this is consistent with Giuliani's reputation for 'toughness' and for being a law-and-order kind of guy? It does not square with that image. And advocating such laxity presents a real danger to the safety and security of the city and the country.
So how do GOP voters reconcile these incongruities? They don't. Many simply give the benefit of the doubt to someone they like, to someone who talks a good game or who presents a tough image. President Bush has enjoyed the same benefit of the doubt, as he adopts a tough policy in regard to the War in Iraq but leaves our doors and windows wide open here at home, welcoming not only Latino illegals by the tens of millions, but also more Moslem immigrants and visitors than ever before.
I am seeing less and less difference between the average Republican voter and the average Democrat. I see more people choosing candidates based on personality or image rather than on the principles the candidate supports, or on the actual record of the candidate. I had always assumed that Democrats make emotional choices, not grounded in logic and common sense, but I see plenty of this among Republicans, too.
The only comfort I can take is that it's early days yet; the campaigns begin much too soon, these days, and a lot could and likely will change before the conventions and the elections next year. Things may shake out very differently than we expect; I certainly hope so. If things continue mostly unchanged, I think Baldwin may well be right; the conservatives who are still GOP voters may jump ship. I certainly will, unless a real conservative candidate is nominated.
As I said, though, the number of real conservatives in the GOP might be smaller than I had imagined, at least based on the presidential preferences.
Conservatism needs a real renaissance in order to once again be a force in America; in order for that to happen, I think a lot of people must first recognize that the GOP is not the natural home of conservatism now, if indeed it ever was. I think this upcoming campaign will finally disillusion the real conservatives, and sift the GOP.
Is 2008 The Year Conservatives Abandon The GOP?
[And just off the top of my head, I would say that the answer is an unequivocal YES. given the disappointing batch of faux 'conservatives' who are being presented to us as presidential material.
The bad news is: there may be far fewer conservatives in America than many of us think.]
Here is an excerpt from Baldwin's article:
It is no hyperbole to say that conservatives throughout America are extremely disappointed and disillusioned with the national Republican Party. This discouragement is only deepened as they peruse the field of prominent candidates being trotted out as "frontrunners."
It appears that conservatives will be asked to choose between the chameleon Mitt Romney, the pro-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens John McCain, and philanderers Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. A few conservatives seem slightly excited that former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson is mulling entrance into the presidential race. However, a closer inspection of his voting record finds him to be just another globalist neocon, who would do little to change things in Washington, D.C. For example, Americans for Better Immigration gives him a puny career grade of "C."
Now, given this last paragraph by Chuck Baldwin, check out the Presidential poll at Right on the Right.
I notice the enthusiastic, almost euphoric response to Fred Thompson's candidacy; who knew that Thompson had so many zealous admirers, or that he is the knight on a white horse who will save conservatism? Maybe the voters and commenters at Right on the Right know something that I don't know, because my assessment of Thompson, based on what I could find about his voting record when he last held office, was rather lackluster. I agree with Baldwin that he would represent more of the same failed neocon policies, and I note that his report card on immigration accorded him only a 'C.' That C is not for conservative, in my book.
Baldwin further spells out the dilemma faced by the grassroots conservatives in the GOP:
The Republican Party's unwillingness to advance a genuine conservative has left millions of grassroots Republicans on the verge of leaving the GOP. For example, a poll at the recent CPAC meeting found the "overwhelming majority of conservatives displeased with the leadership of the Republican Party, and most conservatives scowl at the thought of having to vote for Rudoph Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney." '
I have had my ear to the ground, as far as the presidential race is concerned, and I am baffled by the fact that a solid majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to amnesty and 'comprehensive immigration reform' or a 'guest worker program' or a 'path to citizenship.' Most Americans at this point are savvy enough not to fall for the double-talk and the euphemisms, and most of us know the politicians are trying to pull the wool over our eyes with these various verbal sleights-of-hand. Yet at the same time, I am hearing a distressing number of Republicans all ready to vote for Rudy, or Mitt, or Fred Thompson, apparently. And then there are always a few who actually think Newt Gingrich is Mr. Conservative, oblivious to the fact that he speaks with a forked tongue on the amnesty/borders issue. He parses his words carefully, trying to sound pro-enforcement, but at the same time, preaches the usual PC platitudes, carefully treading the line, not too far to the right.
So where is the disconnect? Why are people who seem to have certain conservative principles and inclinations so eager to compromise the principles and vote for another open borders guy like Giuliani or a waffler like Romney? Or settle for a guy like Thompson with a lukewarm grade on immigration?
The usual weak excuse given is that 'we can't be purists', and we can't get everything we want in a candidate. There is no perfect candidate. Fair enough, at least it is true up to a point. But some things ought not to be negotiable; some things are so important that we don't compromise on those vital issues, while we might do so on the inconsequential matters.
But how can any real conservative be willing to compromise on the protection of our borders, and on the right to our national sovereignty, and the sovereignty of the will of the majority in this country? By accepting the selling-out of our country and our culture for the sake of cheap labor or globalist designs, we are being asked to accept the loss of America as we have known it.
It needs to be said again: no conservative would favor sweeping changes to our country, irrevocable changes, which would result from amnesty and continued mass immigration. No conservative would be in favor of any policy which goes against the sovereign will of the American majority. This is just not consistent with conservatism, in any way, shape, or form. So anybody who supports amnesty, mass immigration in our present circumstances, and globalism, is not a conservative, no matter what he calls himself.
Giuliani enjoys a lot of support based on his supposedly masterful job of handling the post-9/11 crisis in New York City. But in the wake of 9/11, the man still supported the 'sanctuary city' policy for NYC, in which illegal immigrants are exempted from any consequences of their illegal presence in our country. How can anyone think this is consistent with Giuliani's reputation for 'toughness' and for being a law-and-order kind of guy? It does not square with that image. And advocating such laxity presents a real danger to the safety and security of the city and the country.
So how do GOP voters reconcile these incongruities? They don't. Many simply give the benefit of the doubt to someone they like, to someone who talks a good game or who presents a tough image. President Bush has enjoyed the same benefit of the doubt, as he adopts a tough policy in regard to the War in Iraq but leaves our doors and windows wide open here at home, welcoming not only Latino illegals by the tens of millions, but also more Moslem immigrants and visitors than ever before.
I am seeing less and less difference between the average Republican voter and the average Democrat. I see more people choosing candidates based on personality or image rather than on the principles the candidate supports, or on the actual record of the candidate. I had always assumed that Democrats make emotional choices, not grounded in logic and common sense, but I see plenty of this among Republicans, too.
The only comfort I can take is that it's early days yet; the campaigns begin much too soon, these days, and a lot could and likely will change before the conventions and the elections next year. Things may shake out very differently than we expect; I certainly hope so. If things continue mostly unchanged, I think Baldwin may well be right; the conservatives who are still GOP voters may jump ship. I certainly will, unless a real conservative candidate is nominated.
As I said, though, the number of real conservatives in the GOP might be smaller than I had imagined, at least based on the presidential preferences.
Conservatism needs a real renaissance in order to once again be a force in America; in order for that to happen, I think a lot of people must first recognize that the GOP is not the natural home of conservatism now, if indeed it ever was. I think this upcoming campaign will finally disillusion the real conservatives, and sift the GOP.
Labels: Conservatism, Gop, Political Parties, Presidential Candidates