Constant Conservative

But then again, we’re not too far off from it either. According to the folks at Gallup, South Dakota came in at Number 4. Here’s the skinny:

A majority of Wyoming, Mississippi, and Utah residents identified as conservative rather than moderate or liberal during the first half of 2010, making these the most politically conservative states in the U.S. The District of Columbia had the greatest percentage of liberals, along with four New England states: Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts.

The chart following the above excerpt shows that 50% of South Dakotans self-identify as conservative. I grant that some of these may no doubt have a different meaning in mind, but still, I’ll take it. Now, if those 50% would consider that Ms. Herseth Sandlin should not be receiving their conservative vote this November, well, that’s something we can take to the polling booth.

It is not possible for a liberal to be “divisive,” however crazed he or she may be. This is true even though the whole point of a political system is to decide issues about which people disagree. If people don’t disagree, it isn’t a political issue. So to argue for any political point of view is necessarily divisive. But divisiveness is a one-way street. When liberals express liberal views, that’s just being a patriotic American. When conservatives express conservative views, it’s “divisive.”

So speaks John of Power Line. I think he’s on to something. Unfortunately, many conservatives care so deeply what others think of them that they step back from things which are “divisive” while thinking that they are adding to the discussion by not causing offense and by somehow remaining above the fray.

For a thought-provoking piece on conservatism, one would do well to read tomorrow’s opinion piece by Stephen Hayward in the WaPo. The author takes conservatives to task for, well, not being Bill Buckley (among other things):

Consider the “tea party” phenomenon. Though authentic and laudatory, it is unfocused, lacking the connection to a concrete ideology that characterized the tax revolt of the 1970s, which was joined at the hip with insurgent supply-side economics.

In defense of the “tea partyers,” it is more difficult for a defense to be focused when one is being attacked from every point of the compass. I found the following perhaps the most incisive statement in the mix:

Others among the right’s leading talkers, such as Sean Hannity, seem unremittingly angry and too reflexively partisan on behalf of the Republican Party rather than the conservative movement (they are not the same thing).

Of course, it is hardly difficult for me to see the truth in a statement that says conservatism and Republicanism are not two names for the same thing. Part of the reason I’m an independent is that I believe Republicanism (as practiced by elected persons who claim that title) has nearly as much to do with conservatism on non-election years as does the opposition.

Go ahead and read the whole piece and consider what we might be doing well or doing better.

I’ve been working on (well, at least organizing in my head) an extensive article or three on the topic of principle and why it is essential today. It is with this context that I bring you a good teaser on the topic from Jay Reding:

But the problem is that if the choice is between the Democrats and the Democrats-Lite, why not vote for the real thing? If Republicans start advocating for more government control, they lose the conservative and libertarian wings of the party and end up losing anyway.

There has to be room for both. The GOP cannot win by turning its back on its principles, but it has to be able to advocate for those principles. Being the best conservative in the world does absolutely nothing unless the GOP cannot get others to understand the importance of that stand.

As you know, I am not a Republican. Nonetheless, there was a time when that party claimed principles with which I find myself largely in agreement. As a conservative, I definetly

I would add that while Mr. Reding’s entire article is worth reading, it is important to note that more than advocacy is needed (if by advocacy one means “speaking out for”). I can advocate for conservative principles all day long–but unless I can also live those principles, I am become as a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal.

This is part of my concern with the Tea Party movement. Many of us can/do/did speak our minds with a message of dissatisfaction with government spending, taxation, fiscal insanity (whatever one wishes to call it) but how many of us who particpated in the Tea Parties are willing to look at our own lives and live those same principles?

UPDATE

PP from the South Dakota War College is thinking similar thoughts with regards to the GOP’s stated intent to re-brand itself:

At the end of the day, I’m not sure we need to “re-brand.”  The GOP got itself into trouble because we failed to practice what we preach – from the White House on down. If we “re-” anything, we need to “re-commit ourselves to doing what we say we’re going to do”

By now most of you have probably heard that President Obama paid a backhanded compliment to Rush Limbaugh when he (Obama) said the following:

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

It seems as though Fastidious became a bit fed up when a Republican Congressman from Georgia, Phil Gingrey, ended up telling folks that it was easy to say things if one was a talk radio host, but that congresspeople had real jobs (or words to that end). She called the good Congressman’s office and much learning ensued.

At the end of her rant, Fastidious leaves us with this closer:

Listen, Republican leadership… you sacrificed your principles on the alter of political expediency, and so when I call to remind you of them, don’t tell me I’m the nut job.  Stop insulting your base.

I’m about to nail a conservative Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Holy Church of Republicanism.

As an Independent who is not a Republican, in large part, for the reasons she mentions, I’d be glad to help craft those theses. I’m concerned about one thing, however.

It will be quite a challenge to keep it to 95.

Mr. Newmark, who teaches economics, understands how conservatives view government:

As I’ve ranted before, most people who assert markets should be given the benefit of the doubt are not–not–arguing in favor of anarchy. How many Republicans, or conservatives generally–can Mr. Edwards name who oppose the government “building roads, maintaining a military, operating courts, delivering the mail and doing other things specifically mandated by the Constitution”? Or do conservatives these days oppose government doing what they have long opposed: things like–to name three things off the top of my head–the incredible red tape to hire a nanny; the wonderful wool-and-mohair program; and the mandate for low-flush toilets. If the federal government only did the things specifically mandated by the Constitution, conservatives would be so quiet you would be able to hear the proverbial pin drop.

There it is. I would like the federal government restrict itself to the enumerated powers. State governments could then take it from there, but still do so conservatively. “The best government is that which governs least.”

Jon Schaff has a few thoughts on conservatism:

The conservative serves an important role in any regime. This is perhaps best illustrated by the story, perhaps apocryphal, of the slave who would ride behind a victorious Roman general during the triumphant return to Rome whispering in his ear “All glory is fleeting.”

The conservative’s task is similar. It is for him to whisper in our ears “there are limits.” Human reason is not sufficient to solve all problems. Sin cannot be eradicated from the human soul. Society is sufficiently complex that it makes central planning difficult, if not impossible.

[...]

But the conservative teaches that perfection is impossible. I recently asked a group of students what “utopia” means. They responded “a perfect society.” True enough, as this is how we often use the word. But “utopia” literally is from the Greek for “nowhere.” In other words, the perfect society is impossible.

As conservatives we must plug our ears against the siren call of a government which is bent toward supposedly conservative goals with the full power of the purse. This was/is the single biggest issue of compassionate conservatism: that somehow if we can get just be nice enough to people (with taxpayers handling the funding) that we can have a better society which is a more equitable place in which we can all live happily ever after.

Conservatism realizes that we are most assuredly not “the change we have been waiting for.” We (humankind) have been the ones mucking everything up since we first had opportunity. When we use government, we often end up doing unnecessary, poor, and even evil things more quickly.

This doesn’t mean we don’t need government at all. History has shown what we can do if there are no external controls to human behavior. It does mean, however, that we need to carefully hold government to its old-fashioned (and some would claim outdated) role: reward the good (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, anyone?) and punish the bad (by protecting the citizens from those who would do our persons and property damage, whether these people be foreign or domestic).

No, not from me, from Paul at PowerLine. Go. Read it. Then come back here and I’ll give you my two cents, as well.

After Paul’s list, I would include the following:

• Remember, there is a God in heaven. And, while you may have your own idea about how involved He is in world events, my own understanding is that He is never caught unawares.
• The most perfect of people fail to meet expectations. Therefore, we should assume that this will also be true for Obama. The honeymoon, for some, will end as soon as the realities of the morning after hit.
• A man’s friends may trip him up as often as his enemies. We’ve already seen this in reference to Wright, Rezko, Ayers and others.

I’m sure that there are any number of variations of and additions to Paul’s list, but that should be enough to chew on for a while.

Betsy’s got a few ideas that Governor Palin might want to consider:

As for Palin’s future, if she wants to have a try again at national politics in either 2012 or 2016, I have a few recommendations for what she should do. She should subscribe to some conservative magazines and the Wall Street Journal and read them regularly so that she add more depth to her understanding of conservative ideas and policies. And she can continue to call into conservative talk radio. That will keep her name out there among conservatives, but she needs to do more. She’ll have to prove that she can do more than talk to those who already agree with her. She could start writing columns on issues rather as Fred Thompson has been doing. That would keep her name out there in connection with conservative ideas and demonstrate a deeper understanding on a wider variety of issues than she demonstrated during the campaign. In fact, I’d recommend that she get to know Fred Thompson better and find a way to couple her energy with his ability to understand and explain conservative positions. A lot of conservatives were hoping that Fred Thompson would be the candidate who could explain conservatism to the American people, but he just didn’t seem to have the energy to engage in the politics necessary for winning elections. She has the energy; now she needs that gravitas.

[ed: emphasis mine]

The statement in bold is absolutely critical. If Palin is to convince the next generation (politically speaking) that she should be the standard bearer, then she absolutely must prove it. Betsy’s recommendation that she (Palin) take some pointers from Thompson is spot on. I supported him (as much as an Independent could) in the primaries, but he seemed to wash out too soon. One wonders if he didn’t find the politics of it all much too painful, and is simply at his best when expositing conservative doctrine.

Betsy’s got much more than this, so read it all.

Over at PowerLine, Paul is wondering if conservatives actually made progress in the elections, based on some of the polling which we now have access to.

It may well be. I would like to think that such a trend is beginning and can be capitalized upon during the next election cycle. However, based on the loosening of language in general, and my own daily experience in particular (where someone recently used the word “altercation” a dozen times in as many minutes to speak of changes, that is “alterations,” he had made to something) I sometimes wonder if certain polling results are not simply a question of people misunderstanding the words which are used.

For example, take the following excerpt from the referenced article:

In our post-election poll we asked two unique questions “Are you more favorable toward ‘Republican’ or ‘conservative’ and ‘Are you more favorable toward ‘Democrat’ or ‘liberal’? ACTUAL voters participating in an election that gave Obama over 300 electoral votes and strengthened the Democratic advantage in the U.S. Senate also said the following: 41% of them preferred conservative and 25% Republican. Startlingly, by a 3-1 margin (55%-18%), actual voters preferred ‘Democrat’ to ‘liberal.’

The words person in me thinks that the results might be skewed by people thinking that “conservative” had something to do with “conservation” (a topic near and dear to the “liberal” heart) for instance. I realize that this might well not be the case, but I also know that such simple confusions do occur.

Slu echoes my own thoughts (but he wrote them down so I could save myself the effort):

After a brief bout with Obama Derangement Syndrome as the results came in, I decided I couldn’t do it. Sure, I’ll photoshop stupid pictures, criticize our new president with vigor and joy, and work to ensure that conservatives are a thorn in his side, but like I said last night, I won’t hate him for a simple reason.

I love this country too much to do to President Obama what the left did to President Bush, John McCain and Sarah Palin. I hope my fellow conservatives will do the same – demonization is not essential to opposition. I plan to spend the next four years like I spent the last four – being a husband, dad and reluctant taxpayer. I’m going to disagree with the president a lot, but I don’t see that as a license to hate. I’ve spent far too much time criticizing the left to become like them.

We cannot defeat those across the ideological divide by becoming like them. People have tried this from time to time and it simply does not work. If we become like those who are diametrically opposed to us, then we are, at a basic level making ourselves indistinguishable from them.

Remember, to the majority of the electorate, polices and positions do not seem to matter half as much as personality and poise. We must continue to say and do those things which are in keeping with who we are as conservatives. But we must do so in such a way that our message is conveyed positively. Nobody likes a downer for long. Sometimes, as in the just completed election, one must address negatives. Nonetheless, if we are to cohere as a group, we should not, we must not, we cannot devolve into doom and gloom.

Iowahawk has a gift. Here’s a bit which he shared recently:

But there is an even more compelling reason to support Barack Obama: Sarah Palin.

If you are a conservative like me, you guffawed when you heard John McCain announced this declasse rube as a running mate, followed by good-natured applause, thinking it was some sort of whimsical campus prank he was reenacting from his Annapolis years. This was, of course, quickly followed the shock of realizing that he wasn’t joking, and all that Hanoi unpleasantness had finally driven him around the bend.

It’s an inescapable conclusion that this woman has, in 6 short weeks, single-handedly destroyed the Republican party. Certainly George Bush may share some of the blame; but we conservatives must remember how our hopes were buoyed by his impressive bloodlines and Yale degree before we realized his excursion to Texas had caused him to “go native.” But la Palin offers true conservatives no such extenuating graces. I mean, my God, this woman is simply awful; the elided vowels, the beauty pageantry, the guns, the crude non-Episcopal protestantism, the embarrassing porchload of children with horrifying hillbilly names, the white after Labor Day. As fellow conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan quipped to me the other day outside a Martha’s Vineyard antique shop, it’s gratifying to know the Gipper isn’t alive to see what has become of his party.

Go, read it all, then weep tears of, of, of, well . . . . something.