Topic: Conservatism
Post-election Thoughts Where do Conservatives go from here?...Good question.by R.J. Moeller
(conservative)
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The American people recently participated in the longest-running democratic system in human history and elected the junior Senator from Illinois as their leader. Barack Obama ran a masterful campaign, defeated an honorable man in John McCain, and will fairly receive the respect his position as Commander-in-Chief deserves. The Right will (and must) show the Left how to disagree without being disagreeable.
Behind Senator Obama lies a campaign trail littered with the remnants of grandiose stump-speech promises that could fill the Grand Canyon twice over. There was the vow to cede the rising levels of globally-warmed waters, if elected. Obama declared that he would (somehow) use his well-earned tag of "Most Liberal Voting Member of Congress" to unite the decidedly partisan politics of Washington. The One even claimed that his time spent organizing communities and writing reflective memoirs had empowered him with the ability to miraculously turn the economic "2 fish, 5 loaves" wealth of the top 5% of Americans into a plentiful tax "cut" for the bottom 95%, with "12 baskets" left over full of enough cash to foot the $1 trillion bill in increased spending he promised voters.
Ahead of him lies reality.
My thoughts and prayers truly go out to our President-elect. For better or worse, and until 2012, the man is running our military, setting the economic agenda for our government and markets, and will be conducting our nation's foreign policy with some of the world's worst regimes and leaders.
That promise to "redistribute wealth" sounded good at a 20,000-strong rally of union workers in Toledo, OH this past October but might look a little different in the sobering presidential light of January and beyond. Likewise, a few intelligence debriefings on the imminent threat of Iranian nuclear proliferation might be the end of all the politically expedient "meet without preconditions" promises Barack naively made during the campaign.
While condemnations of President Obama's yet-to-be-taken future actions are premature and counter-productive at this time, what remains fair game is the necessary critique of the Leftist ideology Barack himself espoused during the campaign. It is the same Leftist ideology that the media by more than 80% agrees with and works tirelessly to present as being "mainstream." It is the same liberal worldview that dominates the modern Democratic Party, which currently controls both Houses of Congress. It is the same materialist view of human existence that governs the subjects taught and discussion tolerated at the overwhelming majority of universities from Berkley to Boston.
Liberalism is the problem, not the people who promote it. It's only because the idea of it is taken seriously by enough people that we are even discussing it.
Margaret Thatcher famously said that one must first "win the argument", or present a more compelling case in the minds of the people than your opponents, before you can "win the vote." Conservatives are not only losing the argument against liberals, they are doing such a poor job of articulating and defending their positions among their own ranks that Republican politicians feel politically comfortable voting for inappropriately increased spending and loading legislation with enough pork to make Famous Dave's jealous.
After the 2004 election, a study by the American Enterprise Institute was conducted to gauge public sentiment on each of the 30 biggest issues facing the country. Issues ranged from social security reform to abortion to the Patriot Act. On 29 of the 30 issues George W. Bush's position was in line with the majority of Americans by an average margin of 70-30%. The lone area conservatives trailed in was environmentalism.
The logical question then becomes: How was that election even close in 2004? How did Democrats dominate the 2006 mid-term election? How is it that the most liberal, most unqualified candidate to ever run for president is now our Commander-in-Chief?
The simple answer is a growing national preference for "style over substance." We can point to American Idol and video games and The Daily Show and explain away the disinterest people under 30 have in conservative political philosophy that encourages things like personal responsibility and civic duty. The over-30 crowd, or at least those who attempt the pretense of knowing what is going on in the country, is bombarded with around the clock, 24-hour newscasts that rarely say anything of substance. They rely on worthless sound bites and Teleprompters to explain the pros and cons of free market capitalism or conduct a debate on "Just War" theory in a 3-minute segment that has been wedged in between Natalie Holloway updates and Nicole Ritchie's "Baby Watch."
My problem with solely blaming "style over substance" is that it gets us nowhere. Obviously it would be swell to have a nation of hard-working, intellectually informed, entrepreneurial, God-fearing citizen-soldiers that could see past the rhetorical and aesthetic deficiencies of a man like John McCain, for the infinitely superior candidate he was compared with Barack Obama.
But the realities and demands of life are such that most Americans do not have the time to stay up late into the night working to reconcile McCain's inability to clearly and convincingly communicate his positions with the impressive accomplishments he had a right to boast about. Our jobs, schooling and lives require the majority of our attention, so when we tune into a debate or convention speech we want to know what the candidate believes in, what they've done to warrant our interest, and what they would do once in office to promote liberty, security and prosperity.
Style, in fact, does matter. The degree to which it does has admittedly increased to a worrisome level, but to continue a blissful ignorance of its importance would be political suicide for the Right......(continued here)
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of R.J. Moeller only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. R.J. Moeller is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I think you're waaaay off base in your assessment of what happened in the election. The Republicans lined up behind McCain ~ all the way from Limbaugh to Hannity to Mitt Romney to Rudy Guiliani. The problem wasn't with the Republicans, it was with the Independents and Democrats. He didn't sway any votes AT ALL. Neither party can win without swaying the Independents or at least SOME from the opposing party. But, no one was influenced by McCain's attacks and old reverie. We all knew he was just another 4 years of Bush without the Texas swagger.
The REAL reasons McCain lost are simple:
1) People were wise to the Sarah Palin is competent ploy. She had been the Mayor of a town of less than 9,000 people, had only been Governor for less than 2 years, had never traveled out of the country, had never passed any national legislation, and couldn't even name the world leaders of most countries.
2) Trying to slander and smear people by association doesn't work. We know Obama didn't believe the ideas of Rev. Wright or the other "terrorists" the Republican right tried to imply were "pals" of his. You have to run on YOUR OWN VIEWS not try to RUN DOWN the other candidate.
3) You have to get someone who is HEALTHY to run for President. Are you telling me that McCain is really the BEST the Republicans have got? He's a doddering old man of 72 who spent 6 years in a POW camp, had several recurring bouts with cancer, could barely raise his arms because his shoulders had been broken while tortured. They've got to get someone who will LIVE through his term!
4) They can't keep fighting the NEWS MEDIA. No one believes everything they tell us anyway. Most people are getting news over the INTERNET now. Even newspapers are failing. The candidate's unedited message will be heard in debates, speeches, advertisements, and through surrogates. Complaining about the NEWS MEDIA is like complaining about the REFEREES in a sporting event. Nobody likes crybabies!
5) You can't run UNPOPULAR candidates for office even if you LOVE their ideas. Ron Paul hasn't got enough following to start a parade! Why don't you get someone like Limbaugh or Hannity? They think they know what the world needs. They think they're popular ~ and they are, until they have to compromise, tone down their rhetoric, or try to be civil. They spit more venom than a Cobra!
There was nothing FAKE about Obama. The man was thoroughly investigated by everyone you can think of. Books were written about him, websites opened, and between Hannity and Limbaugh, there wasn't anything NASTY left to say about him.
You say he was all TELEPROMPTERS and SOUND BITES, yet the man went through 26 National debates, he went head-to-head with McCain 3 times, he was interviewed innumerable times by the news media ~ even O'Reilly! The man is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School and taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years, and you think he's all SMOKE and MIRRORS.
Your problem is the same as the Republicans you think it's all STYLE and NO SUBSTANCE, but it isn't ~ it's just JEALOUSY and ENVY!
Master C- While I do very much appreciate you taking the time to read my thoughts, I know you to be an ardent pro-Obama for as long as we've interacted on Nolanchart. That doesnt disqualify you from debate, anymore than my support for McCain since he won the GOP's nomination disqualifies me...but let us lay our cards on the table and be forthcoming for the sake of those reading our thoughts that each of us come at the issues from a decidely Left (in your case) and Right (in mine) perspective.
With that said, let me address some of your points.
First, McCain did indeed garner the support (eventually) of conservatives like Romney and Rush and Prager and Medved, just as Obama got endorsements from the Democrats who didnt like him initally (see: Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton). This is called politics and it happens every four years. Rare exceptions of politicians like Joe Lieberman (your party's 2000 VP nominee, btw) who cross party lines do exist, but are obviously rare. No candidate is perfect and makes everyone happy, and to be honest, if there were, I'd be scared. Human nature being what it is, and our nation's clear track-record of being leery of any who would seek power of us, I wouldnt want a leader that EVERYONE agreed with. Conservatives backed McCain because of the alternative, Obama, was unacceptable at nearly every quantifiable level. He is the most liberal, most unqualified candidate to ever run and win. If you are a liberal (like yourself), you are happy. Conservative voters were more voting AGAINST Obama than FOR McCain. I never liked McCain. I never wanted him as my candidate. But it was not even a debate in my mind which person I would vote for the in the general election. Many Democrats did the same thing with Obama, as do every election. 18 million Democrats liked Hillary more than Obama in the primaries. Obviously Obama wasn't everyone's first choice either. Obama won because of the under-30 vote and minority voters. This isn't any sort of critique of that, just the facts. Among married people, McCain won by about 70-30%. Among Religious people who attend services at least once a month, he won 65-35%. Among our troops, McCain won 75-25%.
Of course the Independents matter, but the Dem's generally liked and believed in their candidate...we didn't. It didn't hurt to have a media that votes 80-20% Democrat every 2 and 4 years (MSNBC reported those numbers, btw). You say people get their news from the internet...and that's supposed to make us all feel better? What happened to journalistic integrity? You dismiss the mainstream media (which shows you agree with the charge that it is biased), but how did it get so biased? Is that a good thing? And why is it that Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are seriously considering the Fairness Doctrine for things like talk radio? Could it be because they feel threatened and like the way the mainstream media covers their butts (and not Republicans')? Isn't this too a problem (that is solely coming from the Left)?
1) Sarah Palin had more experience than Barack Obama...plain and simple. We liked her for her values and executive experience. You liked Obama for his values and his time writing books and organizing communities. Just leave it at that. Your ticket won, ours lost. People might have been turned off by Palin, but I was turned off by Joe Biden. So what does that mean? You didnt like Palin, liberals didn't like Palin, and some snobby conservatives (yes, we conservatives do have idiots on our side as well) were disrespectful to her and now McCain's people (the one's who selected her) are trying to throw her under the bus. The woman had the highest rated convention speech, the highest rated debate, and the highest rated SNL in 20 years. Her rallies outnumbered McCain's. She wasnt the problem.
2) Obama's associations dont matter? If you do not posses the intellectal honesty to admit that had McCain gone to a church that taught "white value system" and had been mentored by a man who taught that "black people ruin America" he would never be a viable candidate for any office at any level then you are incapable of worthwhile discussion. I'm sorry, but that is just facing the facts. If you dont care about it, that is one thing, but to say its not worth discussing or pointing out is absurd and only speak to how far you are willing to go for the sake of your ideology, instead of the truth. This is the problem with politics and our culture today...people dont want to deal with reality or with truth becaue it gets in the way of their worldview or emotions. You dont like conservatives so you're willing to overlook the fact that not ONE SINGLE PERSON from Obama's past came forward to vouch for the guy and a consistent track-record of public associations he had with public figures in his career (Tony Rezko, Father Flagger, Rev Wright, Will Ayers) all turned out to be nuts or felons or both. The guilt by association might not work, but you'd have to tell Democrats from 2006 that when it came to Abrahmoff and Mark Foley....nah, there was no guilt by association tactics that were tried (and worked) there. Good point, Master C.
3)Health issues? Liberals never shut up about how everyone is equal and no matter what your size, shape, ability, or age everyone should be able to do everything. Maybe now you are seeing that futility and foolishness of such thinking. Lets say you are right, and that McCain is old....is it fair to say then that Obama's youth and inexperience running anything other than his mouth to promise "redistribution of wealth" is a problem? Or what about Nancy Pelosi's lack of height which makes her look weak when standing next to dictators in Syria on trips she shouldn't have gone on? (BTW, how well do you think Dem's will take it if during The One's presidency GOP Senators and Congressmen travel abroad for diplomatic missions with foreign leaders the State Department insisted not be taken?)
4) The news media is fighting us, not the other way around. It's not just the big 3 networks and the NY Times....its everything outside of Fox News, blogs, and talk radio. But here's the thing...I'm okay with that. But Master C, you better be leading the charge against the Fairness Doctrine if and when it comes down the legislative pipe or your insistence that we conservatives stop worrying about media bias will ring hollow. (P.s. The only news station that had not one single dollar donated from its employees to Republicans in 2004 and 2006 was none other than PBS...our tax-funded, "un-biased", government-run network. If that doesn't bother you then you are truly more partisan than 10 Sean Hannity's).
5) I'm not sure why you brough Ron Paul up? I dont care for the man, although he has some decent ideas.
Your rant at the end about smoke and mirrors was smoke and mirrors itself. You know who else has taught for many years in elite universities....Ward Churchill and William Ayers. To cite experience at a major univeristy today is to confirm conservatives' fears that he is more liberal and Leftist than his liberal campaign made him out to be. Nice one. He was interviewed a lot? So is Tobey Macguire and I promise you the guy knows literally nothing. He hung around through debates? So did John Kerry and Michael Dukakis and Bob Dole and Walter Mondale, four of the lamer candidates any party has every put forward.
I said Obama won fair and sqaure. "He ran a masterful campaign." Do I have to sing his praises, or can I get some credit for at least aknowledging that? I think he is wrong, will be a terrible president, and believes in things (i.e. redistributing wealth, abortion) that are ridiculous and un-Constitutional (for a Constitutional professor, thats not a good sign). McCain lost because he is a weak candidate. My article here wasn't to convince you that your vote for Obama was wrong...it was for conservatives to think about what happened and how we can move forward. Your side won the battle, but the culture war continues on (as it should in a free and open society).
#1: Issues and positions can win elections (e.g. Contract with America), but they have to be articulated by a candidate that instills confidence, enthusiasm, energy and yes, charisma. McCain projected none of that and as a result, people never heard the message. He left people with the impression that he was a tottering old man that would continue the legacy of the most unpopular president in recent history.
#2: The Republican Party is struggling with the "It's not your grandfather's Olds Party any more." We have an image of being out of date with modern society. Abortion, drugs, and morality are not the critical issues of the day, and yet we seem to push those to the front of every conversation. I'm not saying that we abandon those issues, but if you want the votes of the under-40 crowd, that can't be the focus of your platform.
#3: Many Americans are turned off by the constant, "He said...", "He's a socialist...", "He's going to raise taxes..." mantra. We need to articulate why free markets, low taxes, free enterprise, entrepreneurialism, and independence are good for everyone's pocketbook, not just the business owners. We have to show them why an across the board tax cut is good for everyone. Instead we let the Democrats and the media use it to play on the wealth envy and jealousy of the public.
#4: Viet Nam established that the American People don't want to fight wars overseas, lose our sons and daughters for a cause they don't understand. 95% supported us after 9/11. They supported bombing Baghdad. They supported going after Hussein, Bin Laden, and Al Qaeda. But they turned against us when we showed no clear strategy for why we were still in Iraq and Afghanistan; why our sons and daughter were still being killed when we had defeated the Iraqi military. The American people will follow a committed, energetic, enthusiastic leader, but all they got were press releases and a weakly radio address. [misspelling on purpose] Why wasn't our leader standing in front of us every week explaining the threat, encouraging our support? Why didn't our leader challenge the Democratic shouts about the lack of nuclear weapons by standing in front of the huge pile of chemical weapons we captured explaining to the American people the hundreds of thousands that could have been killed if Saddam had used them? Why didn't anyone explain to the American people why it is important for us to spend billions of our dollars rebuilding the electrical grid, the water system, the schools, and the roads of Iraq while they have an $80 surplus? That's leadership, and we the Republican Party have failed to show it.
#5: We've got to walk the walk! As you said, for years we preached small government and fiscal conservatism, but when we got control, we fell victim to the corruption of Washington. Not just on earmarks, but a whole variety of issues: No Child Left Behind, Medicare Drugs, Campaign Finance Reform, Patriot Act, bloated farm subsidies, bloated transportation bills, .... Every recent president (including Johnson) managed to find some department of government to reduce. Under Bush, not only has government grown by 55%, but every single department has grown, and we added Homeland Security.
#6: We're a nation of laws. We allowed millions to walk across our border because our business friends (read campaign contributors) said they needed the cheap labor. Fix the border, build the fence if we need to, but fix our immigration system so that if we need the workers we can bring them into the country legally, keep track of them, and ask them to leave when the work is done. Ignoring the law because we don't want to fix the problem doesn't solve the problem...and it angers a lot of potential voters.
#7: We're a nation of laws and laws are meant to be enforced equally to everyone. Our party has a horrible reputation for corruption. Cunningham, Delay, Stephens, .... And did we castigate them for their actions. No, we stood in Congress last week and applauded Uncle Ted for his great service to our country--the biggest pork barrel abuser in our party! Jefferson was caught with $100,000 in his freezer--did we castigate him and demand his resignation? No, we criticized the FBI for having the gall to raid a Congressman's office. We have a reputation for corruption, and I'm afraid to say, we deserve it.
In short, we've dug a huge hole in our public confidence. The American people don't believe us any more, and rightfully so. The vast majority of American people are libertarian (small-L) in their beliefs--they want smaller, less expensive, less obtrusive government. They want to be left alone. They don't want to spend dozens of hours filling out income tax forms. They don't want to have to wait 4 months for a passport. They don't want to have to argue with customs and immigration people to get back into their own country. They don't want to have to stand in line for hours at the Social Security Administration. They don't want to hear stories of roaches running the halls of veterans hospitals. They don't want to be told what they can and can't do in their own homes. They don't want to be told what to believe, what morals to value, and what they can and can't do to their own bodies. They don’t want their tax dollars being spent to bail out our fat cat contributors. And they don't want to see their hard earned dollars wasted buying trailers and ice for hurricane victims just because we have so much bureaucracy, rules, and red tape that we can't get the help to the people who need it.
We have a huge opening for the next four years to explain to the people what we stand for and what we can do for them in 2012, but we can't do it following the same Republican leaders and using the same strategy that got us here. (Hear that, Chairman Duncan, Frank Donatelli, Carly Fiorina, Mitch McConnel, John Boehner, John McCain, et.al.?)
I basically agree with everything you said. Great post! I would only say that the reason the social issues aren't as important is because kids are incessantly bombarded with new issues they think they should care more about (i.e. corporations are bad, environmentalism is the new morality, etc). Speaking as a recent member of this demographic, people under 22 simply dont know enough about life yet and look to adults, professors, teachers, etc for guidance. We all do. The Left wants to tell that under-30 crowd that their emotions about things are what should drive them politically...but their emotions on things are domintated by PC-friendly propaganda from kindergarten to grad school. We need to be raising kids and influencing younger people with the issues you brought up (liberty, free markets, etc). They will care about what they see older people caring about and they're seeing the Baby Boomers who went into the media and academia caring about decidely liberal issues. That I believe must change if we are to get the libertarian values you want back into the American consciousness.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
