It's NOT over for Conservatives!

[Troll]

It's going to get harder and harder if this continues. Looks to me like the Republican's haven't learned a damn thing.

Good post, and I don't think they have.

I keep seeing a lot of CU-ers saying that the Republican Party needs to regroup, rebuild, restructure, rethink their stances...in other words, a party-wide shake-up.

My question: How is any of this going to happen if we just keep voting for them? Don't tell me we won't - we will - I'm asking what incentive is there for the Republicans to change their habits if we the voters don't change any of ours?

[LogansPapa]

When I rebuild an engine I start with a block that is worth it - has the potential - not cracked or requiring more work than the motor is worth. The Republican Party is the latter. Scrap it and start over.

[flaja]

When you wean the populace to be dependent on the government, then you are correct. A majority will be content living within the means that big government provides. But our society will suffer. When more people are educated and realize how big government is actually a restraint on a free, productive and vibrant society, only then will conservative principles become more popular. Education is key. That is one reason why conservatives push for more of a choice in education. When close to a majority of citizens pay no income taxes to support government, they will happily vote for candidates who promise them more benefits, at no additional cost.

The average American is too dependent on government to ever be weaned off the public teat. The majority of the electorate may occasionally say they want smaller government, but that same majority will never accept smaller government. Conservatives lost this fight in 1929. Most Americans will always vote their fears rather than their freedoms and they will always fear a bad economy and thus always look to the government for help.

You say that education is key. Who do you propose to do this educating- if not big government?

BTW: As a former private school teacher in a state that doesn’t regulate the curriculum, student testing or teacher qualifications of private schools I don’t support things like school vouchers or public scholarships being used for private schools. I don’t want my tax money going to schools that use things like Bob Jones, A Beka or ACE for students that cannot read at the grade level appropriate for their age. Here in Florida all but a few private schools serve as nothing more than baby-sitting services for brats that cannot or will not do the work required to stay in public school.

[flaja]

Good post, and I don't think they have.

I keep seeing a lot of CU-ers saying that the Republican Party needs to regroup, rebuild, restructure, rethink their stances...in other words, a party-wide shake-up.

My question: How is any of this going to happen if we just keep voting for them? Don't tell me we won't - we will - I'm asking what incentive is there for the Republicans to change their habits if we the voters don't change any of ours?

My understanding is that state laws regulate the party structure and nominating processes for both the Democrats and Republicans so it is very difficult for any kind of grass roots movement to gain control of either party because the laws favor the preservation of the status quo; incumbents in party offices are protected the say way incumbents in public offices are.

But at the same time state laws generally don’t do much to regulate the structure or functions of third parties. So would it be easier and a more efficient use of time and resources for conservatives to either start a new or take over an existing 3rd party?

[flaja]

When I rebuild an engine I start with a block that is worth it - has the potential - not cracked or requiring more work than the motor is worth. The Republican Party is the latter. Scrap it and start over.

I was the 1st registered Republican in my family in 1986, but I left the party when 10 GOP senators voted to acquit Clinton. I set up a website in 2003 to try to promote a 3rd party that I called the National Union Party, which is the name of the fusion party that nominated Republican Abraham Lincoln and war-Democrat Andrew Johnson in 1864. I used this name because I wanted to pay some homage to what the Republican Party had once been. The website got about 2000 hits, but no real interest, before I dismantled it after a few months.

I had wanted to totally revamp the website but with no money to promote a party and being faced with some bad family situations, I just never got back to it. And at any rate, most people on the net who claim to be conservative are actually libertarians, i.e., country club Republicans who demand a tax cut because they cannot otherwise afford both their pot and their Hooker. I doubt that the internet could ever be an effective conservative tool. It concentrates liberals and libertarians far out of their proportion in the U.S. population.

[Molon Labe]

When I rebuild an engine I start with a block that is worth it - has the potential - not cracked or requiring more work than the motor is worth. The Republican Party is the latter. Scrap it and start over.

Wait till 2012 and I may agree..... Judging by who your buddy Obama is hiring for his staff, it looks like it's going to be a continuation anyways. :p

Different faces same philosophies
Some "change"

The Democrats went through something similar after LBJ and Carter and were able right the ship and at least look like they had learned their lessons. That's how they earned the trust of the voters again when Bill Clinton came to town. There's no way he could have won the white house running as McGovern/Carter.

But I don't want it just to be a perceived change of appearance with the same old failed policy, like the Dems did under Der Slickmeister. They still believe in their core principles of socialism no matter how much they said otherwise. We, on the other hand, don't even follow our party platform. Squabbling over which sector of government will grow is all that seperates the parties today.

Our problems are much more serious than the Dems after Carter.

[Molon Labe]

And at any rate, most people on the net who claim to be conservative are actually libertarians, i.e., country club Republicans who demand a tax cut because they cannot otherwise afford both their pot and their Hooker. I doubt that the internet could ever be an effective conservative tool. It concentrates liberals and libertarians far out of their proportion in the U.S. population.

That's because at one time the core conservtive movement had libertarian roots. It always has. Remember Goldwater and Russell Kirk?
Unfortunately, those types were run off when the purges started in the 70's. Most of them are Paleos and, as I posted before, this election is a direct reflection of what happens when you piss off the traditional conservatives who actually still believe the platform.

If your talking about "real conservatives" as values voters and the religious right then I can't agree.
I'm consider myself a Christian, but contrary to popular belief, Christians actually found themselves more comfortable as Democrats prior to Reagan and the culture war. It's still pretty close to a 50/50 split.

[Milly]

[QUOTE=Molon Labe;77123] Remember around 1998, it was National Review that started purging out traditional conservatives when they started kicking out the Paleos like Buchanan and the old guard Welch conservatives...because they didn't believe in bigger government, globalization and didn't like the idea of projecting the military into E. Europe after the Cold war. Some stuck around in 2000 and 2004 because Bush at least talked like those guys.

I think you just hit the nail on the head. When the Republicans begain cozying up to the Globalist crowd, they lost their way. GWB turns out to be a Rino after all.

We conservatives are in for our forty years in the desert. But a re-taking of the party CAN be accomplished. I remember clearly the 1968 convention in Chicago, and the leftist loons rioting outside the convention hall were all inside it by 2008.

[flaja]

That's because at one time the core conservtive movement had libertarian roots. It always has. Remember Goldwater and Russell Kirk?

I’m only 40, so I wasn’t around for Goldwater’s 1964 effort. However, conservatism does not have any libertarian roots. To me the intellectual founders of Anglo-American conservatism are Edmund Burke and Alexander Hamilton. Conservatism’s main goal is to preserve a stable, functional society that can insure its future by drawing on its past. Conservatism is not compatible with the libertarians’ dog-eat-dog, do-your-own thing philosophy.

I'm consider myself a Christian, but contrary to popular belief, Christians actually found themselves more comfortable as Democrats prior to Reagan and the culture war. It's still pretty close to a 50/50 split.

Couldn’t the start of the Religious Right be traced to Nixon’s 1969 Silent Majority? Also note that many of the issues that are important to the Religious Right (such as abortion and the stability of the nuclear family) didn’t come to the forefront of American politics until the early-mid 1970s. With Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election with the support of Christian social conservatives, that group didn’t have long after it materialized to split its vote.

[Troll]

So would it be easier and a more efficient use of time and resources for conservatives to either start a new or take over an existing 3rd party?

Bingo to the latter part. I think starting a new party is a total non-starter. We need to throw our support behind the Libertarian or Constitution Party. With any luck, the Republican Party will go the way of the Whigs within the next decade.