Over the last couple of days, there seems to be a renewed, concerted effort among the Northeastern Republicans’ Club, to question the usefulness of “Social (i.e. Reagan) Conservatives” to their efforts to win elections, both state and national.
Actually, it is something that I noticed starting to gain steam as the 2012 Presidential Primaries started kicking into gear: a serious effort to redefine Conservatism to mean “wanting a government which does not blow all my money and leaves me alone, so that I can do what I want do, regardless of how it effects others around me”.
For example, yesterday, at the annual Political Convention known as CPAC, a historically-Conservative meeting, the legendary RINO New Jersey Governor Chris Christie spoke, and received a standing ovation.
Later, well-known squish Senator Mitch McConnell spoke.
Meanwhile, on my favorite Conservative website, hotair.com, founded by Reagan Conservative Michelle Malkin, and now owned by Moderatate-leaning Salem Communications, the question was asked in one of the posts, “Is Social Conservatism Hurting the Tea Party?”
To quote the late, great Slim Pickens,
What in the Wide, Wide World of Sports is a’goin’ on here?
Who are these individuals, who are so desperately trying to remove the Conservative Base from The Grand Old Party?
On the internet, these believers express themselves in various terms, which all translate to the same thing: Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal.
Their common goal is a desire to redefine the definition of Conservatism in order to make themselves feel better about their non-Conservative, and oft times, downright hedonistic, social ideology.
You’ll find these same individuals on Internet Chat Boards, complaining about how narrow-minded and statist Reagan Conservatives, like myself, are.
And, God help you if you tell them that there is such a thing as morality and ethics. They will tell you that you”re nothing but a busybody who wants to meddle in people’s private lives and take away their “freedom”.
They insist that the only way for the Republicans to win anything at all in 2014 and 2016, is to forget the antiquated ideology of Reagan (Social) Conservatism.
You know, that whole God and Country Bit that I always talk about.
Evidently,to these folks, good, old-fashioned American Faith, Values, and Ethics are just that…old-fashioned.
That’s funny. Down here in Mississippi, that is how we live our lives. We love God. We love our country. We love our family and friends…and, we look out for one another.
Mississippi is not the only state like that. All the states in the Heartland of America, share the same Classic American Values and Beliefs
That’s why the President, entering his 6th year in office, is still out campaigning. He can’t overcome them.
Look at all of the National Issues which he and all of his fellow travelers have been so feverishly trying to ram down our throats: homosexual marriage, amnesty for illegal immigrants, the legalization of marijuana, and gun confiscation. They have all been stalled by the conviction of average Americans to stand up for their faith and values.
No matter how much Progressive Propaganda is unleashed upon the American Citizenry, Conservatives in America’s Heartland are standing firm, solid in their beliefs, still “bitterly clinging to their Bibles and guns”.
No matter how many rigged polls and slanted news stories are thrown at us, we will not be moved.
Concerning those who believe that being a Conservative only hinges on your Fiscal Ideology…
J. Matt Barber wrote in the Washington Times that
Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds true conservatism. The legs are represented by a strong defense, strong free-market economic policies and strong social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.
A Republican, for instance, who is conservative on social and national defense issues but liberal on fiscal issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative socialist.
A Republican who is conservative on fiscal and social issues, but liberal on national defense issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative dove.
By the same token, a Republican who is conservative on fiscal and national defense issues but liberal on social issues – such as abortion, so-called gay rights or the Second Amendment – is not a Reagan conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.
Put another way: A Republican who is one part William F. Buckley Jr., one part Oliver North and one part Rachel Maddow is no true conservative. He is – well, I’m not exactly sure what he is, but it ain’t pretty.
At the Forth Annual Conservative Political Action Committee Convention in 1977, Ronald Reagan said,
The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations — found through the often bitter testing of pain, or sacrifice and sorrow.
One thing that must be made clear in post-Watergate is this: The American new conservative majority we represent is not based on abstract theorizing of the kind that turns off the American people, but on common sense, intelligence, reason, hard work, faith in God, and the guts to say: “Yes, there are things we do strongly believe in, that we are willing to live for, and yes, if necessary, to die for.” That is not “ideological purity.” It is simply what built this country and kept it great.
So, if your stated political ideology is one of those listed above, by not differing from them in your Social Ideology, and fighting against Reagan Conservatives, in your own Party, like me, whom you have so derisively named “True Conservatives”, aren’t you being unwitting dupes for the Progressives?
Even the Progressives claim to be “Fiscally Responsible”.
And another thing…if being a “Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal Moderate” was so popular and your viewpoint so widespread, why is homosexual marriage having to be put in place by activist judges? Why was “gay marriage” not passed in the majority of states by popular vote?
Could it be that, despite all of the propaganda coming out of the Northeast, from both sides of the political aisle, the majority of Americans in “Flyover Country” remain actual Reagan Conservatives?
I’ll ask Presidents Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain, and Romney for their opinions.
Until He Comes,