parts of the party
There is a place in the Republican party for moderates, traditional conservatives, and more radical elements.
An unfortunate truth is that I hear hear time and time again the traditional conservatives and moderates derading their more extreme counterparts. The job of the extremers are to say and do off the wall things, without going too far. This gets attention.
The very nature of traditional conservatives makes them require the assistant of the more activist elements of the party. By nature, traditional conservatives find comfort in the status quo, or the way things used to be. The unfortunate thing is that traditional conservatives and many moderates lack the passion to get fired up and force change. They'd much rather the spotlight be on someone else. The desire to be even-toned, entertain the other side's arguments (no matter how baseless), and find common ground is, unfortunately, a liability when the otherside will take 2 arms and a leg if you let them. And this is where the radicals come in. Essentially, they are the balls of the party.
Now I mentioned that the moderates and traditionalists (paleo-cons) also have their places. The reason I've spent so much time on the neo-cons is because they are the most underrated part of the party among non-neocon party members. As for the traditionalists, their job is to put a legitimate spin on what the extremists say, just as it is the extremists job to take traditional issues and make them exciting in a 21st Century world. The job of moderates is to appear as the "reasonable" face of the party. Their job is to moderate the ideas of the radicals, making them mainstream enough to be implimented.
Without the extremists, nobody listens to the moderates. and traditionalists. Without the moderates, the extremists look crazy. Without the traditional conservatives, the moderates look wishywashy. To put it another way, the extremists are the passion of the party, the moderates are the face of the party and the traditionalists are the reason of the party.
posted by All Your Base @ 5:12 PM
17 Comments:
Do you think the more extreme wings of the party are right in calling the moderates "RINOs" (Republican in name only), or should they just accept their moderate beliefs as beneficial?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Wow I really disagree with you on this...first you missed a few huge parts of the party.
Actually there are many...
Traditional Conservatives
Elite Conservatives
Neo-Cons
New Age Conservatives (Former Liberals with Conservative solution to liberal ideals)
Social Conservatives
Liberatarian Conservatives
Economic Conservatives
Religious Conservatives
ECT....
often there is overlap in these ideals...
I take huge issue with RINOs, they are not the face of the party...exactly who is it that loves these people. Liberal Republicans in blue states and the mainstream press. Thats it.
To be a party is to have some platform to rally behind and the republican platform has is pro-life, limited government, individual freedom (with constitutional restraint), pro-gun, and pro-family platform. The truth is that Rino's are more often than not opposed to the majority of the republican platform...Olympia Snow for example...
these people are holding the party back...not giving us a face. The reason the nucular options has been used is because a few rino's are once again siding with the democrats...the social security changes are being held up mainly by rino's...rino's helped weaken the Schivo legislation...support an unconstitutional campaign finace law..ect..ect...ect..
The only reason the press spends all day long trying to praise the Rinos is they hold back the republican agenda...which the press hates...take these rino republicans out of bluestates and they would get killed. The are already getting thrown out in the south, west, and increasingly the midwest.
I am all about being an inclusive party...but when you let people in who don't just disagree with you on some issues, but the majority of the whole platiform, it gets counter productive.
rino's belong in the democrat party...they agree with them more...
side note* I will trade democrats mcain for liberman anyday!
Mike - you make some interesting points. So, I raise this question: Do you think our nation needs a third moderate party to take over the middle? It seems to me that such a thing would free up the GOP and the Democrats to take rightist/leftist positions and cater to their bases better.
Interesting points Mike, though I didn't care to get bogged down in the various details of every possible subgroup within the Republican Party.
To clarify, when I said moderates are the face of the party, I meant those are the people we refer to and say "look at Mr. Generic moderate. see? we're mainstream" and while the public is distracted looking at the moderates and thinking, "you know, they really aren't so bad after all" the paleo and neocons are running the show.
Drew,
I don't think a third party will be needed...I think when the baby boomers die out...the left will lose control of the democratic party...abortion, and secularism are literally killing them off faster than they can replace themselves...the moderates will then take over the democratic party...the left will become a fringe again...
this won't happen for another 10-20 years, but I belive its coming
All your base...thanks for the clearify...sorry I thought you were going somewhere else with this...thanks for clearing it up! Good entry though...great discussion!
A third "moderate" party to "take over the middle"? What the heck???
How about a second party to represent those of us who are not "in the middle"?
And also: It is unfortunate that we even have to use the term "traditonal conservatism"... In a better time, that term would be considered redundant (as it should be).
And neoconservatism is not a form of conservatism - it is rooted in the left-wing, statist philosophies of those such as Leon Trotsky, Max Schachtman and the Social Democrats.
I dispute your definition of neocon. The problem with traditional conservatives, or paleo-conservatives if you will, is that they continue to think of the world in terms of the 19th Century rather than the 20th and 21st. I'd liken it to the difference between Theodore Roosevelt (focusing on what is here and now) and Calvin Coolige (paleo)...though my specific knowledge on both of those characters is fairly limited, so my analogy ought only be applied in general terms.
That isn't "my definition"... Some of the neocons themselves have basically acknowledged their non-conservative origins. Leading neoconservative writer Stephen Schwartz had a piece published in National Review Online extolling the virtues of Leon Trotsky, whose philosophy forms a basis for the neoconservative political ideology, and for its manifestations in the present day. The statist and left-wing roots of neoconservatism (a term which is inherently oxymoronic) have been known for decades.
Not to be rude, but could you actually post a definition rather than make a post with a bunch of links in it? Thanks
whoo whee we got a fight going!
:-)
Ok Neo-Cons are still in the core somewhat conservative...
examples:
Most are prolife which is consistant with conservative logic.
They are pro-military again a conservative principle
They at least claim to be for limited government...we will see if this is true soon when we see how much they actually cut.
Neo-Conservatives have some left leaning beliefs...no doubt about it...but they are still more conservative than liberal...and they are not moderates...so they are part of the conservative sphere...
You see the main problem I have with some people on my conservative side is they feel only there conservative view is conservative...this is foolish...Neo-Cons are the furthest left of the conservative movement..even way more so then New Age Conservatives...which I often discribe my self as on many issues...and I am very right wing...
they key to understand is that without these many forms of conservatism we could not throw of the left...YET...but the neo-cons are not doing the best job right now...they are getting beat up a lot in congress by the left...I think we need to start the move further right or the conservatives are going to become disenfranchised
Remeber this: The republican party may lose because of us...they will never win without us.
This is reality in modern times.
That definition looks about right to me. Thanks for providing it as well as the insight, Mike.
"Ok Neo-Cons are still in the core somewhat conservative..."
I would say that it is the other way around... On the periphery, they may give a 'conservative' appearance (but these days, that is "in" - everyone claims to be a "conservative), but their core is statist and socialist in nature (as those links in my above comment posts indicate).
"They at least claim to be for limited government...we will see if this is true soon when we see how much they actually cut."
They do? One of the core principles of neoconservatism is acceptance of the welfare-warfare state, and support for bigger government, and more state involvement in people's affairs. This is why they praise Lincoln, FDR, Truman, LBJ, John McCain, and some of the policies of Clinton/Gore - while having opposed the policies of conservative Republican leaders such as "Mr. Republican" Robert Taft, General Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, as well as President Ronald Reagan. When George W. Bush was running for President in 2000, many of the neocons chose to back R.I.N.O. John McCain. It is the neocons who coined the phrase "Big Government Conservatism", and who continue to promote it as a policy today.
As for the issue of whether most are pro-life, I can address that matter at another time. I don't believe that a movement like that should be characterized as "pro-life"... I mean, one of its leading commentators (who probably authored Bush's "Axis of Evil" statement) supports abortion and wants for RUDY GULIANI to be our party's next presidential nominee, and two of its other leading contemporary commentators (Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes - both journalists as well as television personalities) advocated removing anti-abortion language from the Republican Party Platform.
And look what they said about our U.S. Senate candidate!
And regarding being "pro-military"... Our U.S. military leaders have been at war against the neoconservatives and neoliberals, and their policies, for over a decade now... Many of the senior U.S. military leaders have resigned their positions (or been fired) during the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations due to this... I've written about this issue many, many times before.
But unfortunately, due to various circumstances, I don't have time to get into this more now... or for the next few days, perhaps - so this debate may have to wait until later. Thanks for the dialogue - As I've said before during discussions in the Blogosphere, this type of thing is quite healthy, and it helps us to learn from each other.
Essentially, a neocon is this:
Machiavelli foreign policy (preemption, whatever you will)
Adam Smith economic policy (Massive tax cuts and increases for the military are inherently neocon-esque. Expansion of medicare and social security is not).
In addition, an underlying nationalistic motive exists.
Neocons don't especially strike me as socially conservative. In fact, they generally don't strike me as people who care either way socially. Social conservativism is more of a traditional conservative thing.
Well there is what a Neo-con is in theory, then there is reality...
I don't know many people who call themselves Neo-con's who aren't pro-life...a few northern politicians like Guli and such...but most of the ground troops I have meet who are self proffessed Neo-cons are pro-life.
However, being pro-life is not one of their priorities. It falls behind foreign policy and economics and such...
George Bush for example...he is prolife...says he is so...but he hasn't PUSHED any prolife bills through congress...he just signs the bills if the congress gets it passed on their own. He may say he supports it if asked, but he tries to not make it much of an issue...thats why his anwer is always "I want a culture of life" He is prolife...but its not a major part of his agenda...
That is most Neo-cons I know or have heard of...prolife, but its not a major part of their agenda...
Hehe, I'm a moderate. =)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home