November 5, 2008
The Discussion we Missed
We'll spend a little time "fixing" the GOP on these pages -- there's a fun thread waaaay down the page.
But I'd rather fix the level of debate. And I bet I might get The Heretic and LatteSipper (mmmm, coffee) on board. Dr. Helen has a nice quote today. She's glad "It's the Economy Stupid."
Next election cycle, it will be something else. It might favor the Republicans or it might not. But to think that the entire philosophy of individual rights, small government, national security and gun rights is lost on a new generation of voters based on this one election is not only foolish, it shows a degree of cynicism that may not be accurate. The next two or three election cycles will need to be evaluated before we can say that America has rejected the ideas of free markets and free minds.
Does anybody think that was discussed this year? We had a superb differential in candidates' philosophy, a liberal democrat versus a conservative Republican. But the Democrat talked about "hope" and "change" and the Republican talked about Bill Ayers and experience.
McCain was right to propose the ten town hall meetings. I don't think our great nation has the attention span for Lincoln-Douglass debates, but we need the depth of debate we got in the comedy routines of the Al Smith Dinner. The media and debates and campaigns prevented any meaningful discussion.
jk, you're right.
This election wasn't about philosophy left/right until Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder came along.
That was when the polls started to shift. There just wasn't enough time.
People I talked with didn't care about Ayers/Wright/or lack of any experience. Most people pay no attention. Instead they wanted change and Obama in face and form reflects that.
He won (yes, with the media in the tank) but he won. This is still a country of free press and they were free to kiss his rear all the way to the polls.
I really don't believe that we are a nation of Barbra Streisands/Tim Robbins vs a nation of Joes and Titos at heart. I do believe there are too many people who don't give a rip about the boring facts. I suspect more will take notice now that the left will be free as a bird to do what they want. But with Pelosi/Reid/Obama leading the decision making - eyes will open. Or else Joes/Titos/jks etc will powerup.
Posted by: Terri at November 5, 2008 4:03 PMCONSERVATIVE Republican? We weren't watching the same election brother.
You can choose to whistle past the graveyard with Dr. Helen but the mere fact that voters choose Democrats and their socialist solutions to economic problems is proof enough that at least the ideas of individual rights and small government are in peril. National security and gun rights shouldn't rest comfortably either. (See my Inaugural Speech post below.)
Conservatism's electoral problem is principally the effect of forty years of labor union controlled post-modern public education that somehow results in our young people believing that "commies are cool."
Posted by: johngalt at November 5, 2008 4:29 PMConservative enough to take the side of the forces of light in a discussion of taxation, health care, free trade, gun rights, and the importance of a muscular defense. I decry his populism but find that to be part of conservatism today. If you disagree, it's semantics but when I part ways with Senator McCain, I don't feel I am taking the "conservative" side.
Keep in mind my hero's magnum opus closes with a chapter titled "Why I Am Not a Conservative." I don't hold the term in the reverence some around here do.
Posted by: jk at November 5, 2008 4:47 PMAnd conservative enough to propose a $300 billion bailout that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan would have never, EVER supported (let alone proposed), even if it was the one thing that meant winning an election?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 5, 2008 8:31 PMRespectfully, John McCain is conservative when compared to Obama, or even to most Democrats. But there are conservative Republicans, liberal Republicans and then there are quixotic "mavericks" like McCain. I suppose that explains how we can both see the same man differently. In fact, I think we've all shared the conflicting sentiments of loving and hating what the man does at any point in time.
Posted by: johngalt at November 5, 2008 9:09 PMIf you want to talk about a real conservative, Mark Levin (no I'm not talking about him) on his radio show last night was playing some of Ronald Reagan's speeches. One was from 1964, in support of Goldwater. Not sure where the others were from.
Reagan decrying how federal agents can search without warrants, and even levied fines without trial against a man who "overplanted" rice. The man's lands were seized and auctioned off to satisfy the federal judgment.
The Gipper decrying foreign aid to poor countries that turn around and buy 1000 TVs for a town with no electricity, and $7 billion in U.S. gold. (The latter is because the inherently broken Bretton Woods system fixed gold at $35 per ounce, but the world market price. You made money by buying gold from the U.S. government and selling it on the world market. That's why Nixon ended our involvement, which was not "taking us off the gold standard" like people think.)
The Gipper blasting the bureaucracy of government: "Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"
Now that was a real conservative, and someone a libertarian could support in good conscience.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 6, 2008 11:34 AMOh yeah, President Reagan remains the standard. I may still be star-struck, but I see some of that in Governor Palin. She doesn’t have his deep ideological temperment, but she has the courage and the natural ability to operate on both sides of Conservative-Libertarian divide.
Posted by: jk at November 6, 2008 12:53 PM | What do you think? [7]