In trying to decide what picture was appropriate for this post the gun toting Ann Coulter sums up my sentiments the best ;-)!! I've been wrestling with my odyssey on who to support for the Republican nomination. I have gotten A LOT of flack from some for my favoring of Rudy. So last night while preparing for my article to submit to the KC Star I did some research. The following articles sum up my view of of the Republican race in general and my reasons for being close to endorsing Rudy. I think some in the Conservative base have become way too negative and too ideological on single issues. I also am done making apologies for favoring Rudy. You can disagree or disapprove of where I'm coming from but this is where I'm at and where I stand.
As I was reflecting on the dramatic turnaround in Iraq and how Bush is positioned for a rebound I thought about how I had stuck to my guns despite the constant criticism that I was delusional and wrong on Bush and the War. It is pretty awesome to see the turn of events and how it pays to be optimistic and to believe in and stand for what is right despite public sentiment. I will do the same on this issue even if the criticism is from other conservatives.
The Articles:
1) Conservatism's Self-Inflicted Wounds by Greg Alterton
This post describes where I am coming from to a tee!! I could not explain it any better than this. Here are some excerpts:
“When did abortion start dividing people within our own party in this manner that we’re fighting with each other and trying to provoke fights? I see a lot of conservatives fighting with each other, fellow Republicans, with far more vigor than they go after the Democrats. This is outrageous behavior.”Once again I think of the issue of immigration and how it divided Conservatives. People like Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin were exactly what Alterton describes Conservatives being since Reagan, "...negative, reactive, single-issued, inward-looking, strident, off-putting, divisive, and emotive." My fear is these Conservatives seem to be the loudest, I just hope they aren't the majority.
...I commented that American conservatism suffers from the lack of an identifiable consensus leader that can unite us all. Not since Ronald Reagan left office has conservatism produced a leader of national stature that we could all rally behind – and this lack of leadership since Reagan has been one of the great failings of this generation of conservatives. Leaderless, conservatism has deteriorated back to base instincts: eccentricity, paranoia, and nostalgia (to borrow an observation made by authors John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge in their generally positive history of contemporary American conservatism, The Right Nation). Under Reagan, conservatism was forward looking, positive, pro-active, visionary, out-reaching, appealing, unifying, and rational. Conservatism since Reagan has become stuck-on-stupid, negative, reactive, single-issued, inward-looking, strident, off-putting, divisive, and emotive. We keep looking for the next Reagan because conservatism hasn’t been as appealing or as victorious as it was in the Reagan era. Until we have a leader who can turn conservatism around to make it a positive force in American politics, I’m afraid that “appealing to the base” (meaning, as I’m using the term, appealing to the “base nature” of conservatism today) is a recipe for electoral disaster.
I would add that many conservatives have become overly idealistic, and consequently have become unrealistic about the progress of their issues. Many pro-life voters, as an example, reflect this unrealistic perspective on the politics of abortion. Here’s the reality: It’s been almost 35 years since Roe v. Wade. Over that time we’ve had almost 19 years and counting of pro-life presidents (Reagan, Bush-41, Bush-43), 12 years of Republican majorities in the House, and 16 years of Republican majorities in the Senate. And what do we have to show in terms of substantive progress on the abortion issue for all of that political advantage? The only issue that has passed Congress is the partial-birth abortion ban, but even that had to be affirmed by a recent decision of the Supreme Court.
Getting down to what this all means in the campaign for the nomination…Rudy’s pledge to appoint strict constructionists to the courts is about as good as it’s going to get for the pro-life movement. Even Reagan was spotty on his appointments to the Supreme Court, which means that Rudy’s appointments might actually be better for the pro-life issue than Reagan’s were (heresy, I know). And while GW Bush has been strongly pro-life, and the GOP had a majority in the Senate for four years of his Administration, some of Bush’s more solidly conservative judicial nominations never even came to a vote. So, to threaten to sit out the election if “pro-choice” Rudy Giuliani is nominated, or to hold the party, the nation, and every other issue of importance in the election hostage to the single issue of abortion, is unrealistic, naive, and just wrong-headed.
2) Today's Republicans might not elect Reagan by Steven Thomma
Again, Thomma makes some excellent points and expresses some of the frustration I feel. As Mike has said, some initially saw Reagan as the "lesser of 2 evils". Obviously, in hindsight those people now look ridiculous. Here is Thomma's opening paragraph:
They want to put his face on Mount Rushmore, but Republicans today are demanding such ideological purity that they might not even nominate Ronald Reagan for president if he were to run now.
3) What's a "Social Conservative"? by Greg Alterton
An excerpt:
So, why am I, a social conservative, supporting Rudy Giuliani for President? To address it briefly:
* Because Rudy is the most conservative person in the race. His record as mayor shows that he governed with conservative principles, and that he is willing and quite able to fight for those principles, successfully so. The fact that he did this in an extremely liberal city such as New York inclines me to believe that he’s up to the task to lead this nation.
* I support Rudy Giuliani because, while many people have fallen asleep on this point, we’re still a nation at war, working here and abroad to assure America’s security against Islamist terrorists. Rudy Giuliani clearly understands this, and is, in my opinion, the only one who can refocus the nation’s resolve on this issue.
* Finally, I think Rudy stands the best chance of beating Hillary Clinton. For me, the most important “traditional value” in this election is keeping the Clintons out of the White House. In this, I believe that social conservatism should, ultimately, be pragmatic.
On a personal note: I have worked in government relations and politics for the past 35 years. Thirty-five years ago, in college, I came to Christ, expressed faith in who he is and what he did on the cross, so I’ve spent my entire professional career considering how my faith impacts, or should impact, the arena I work in.
4) Why the Right Should Support Giuliani by Deroy Murdock
Here are some excerpts:
The most important ‘traditional value’ in this election is keeping the Clintons out of the White House,” says Greg Alterton, an evangelical Christian who writes for SoConsForRudy.com and counts himself among Rudolph Giuliani’s social-conservative supporters.Some have mentioned that we shouldn't support Rudy because too many Conservatives have threatened not to vote for him in the general election. I have taken that into account but I don't see why I should shun someone who I think would make the best president just because some are threatening to throw negative temper tantrums if they don't get their way.
People like Alterton are important, if overlooked, in the Republican presidential sweepstakes. Anti-Giuliani Religious Rightists are far more visible. Also conspicuous are pundits whose cartoon version of social conservatism regards abortion and gay rights as “the social issues,” excluding other traditionalist concerns.
This “Rudyphobia” ignores Giuliani’s pro-family/anti-abortion ideas, his socially conservative mayoral record, and his popularity among churchgoing Republicans.
Religious Right leaders should study Giuliani’s entire, socially conservative record, not just the “socially liberal” caricature of it that hostile commentators and lazy journalists keep sketching. Social conservatives should not make the perfect enemy of the outstanding. Ultimately, they should recognize that a pro-life, third-party candidate would subtract votes from Giuliani in November 2008.
This would raise the curtain on a 3-D horror movie for social conservatives: “The Clintons Reconquer Washington” — bigger, badder, and more vindictive than ever.
5 comments:
I am an ABC voter: Anyone But Clinton.
Cthulhu is preferable to HRC...
I GUESS I'M ABC 2!
I LIKE MITT A LOT.
RUDY MAY HAVE 2 MANY PROBS.
FRED IS WIMPY ON THE TRAIL.
HUCK IS AWFUL.
MCCAIN IS A LIB HAWK.
I AINT NO LIB.
WHICH MEANS IM MOSTLY 4 RUDY AND MITT AND THEN FRED.
LUV DUNCAN, BUT HE HAS NO CHANCE.
EAGER TO HEAR WUT HEES GONNA SAY ON MORMONISM.
BTW: AJAX:
I WROTE A POST ON JACKSON VERSUS QUINCY ADAMS A FEW DAYS AGO.
DIDGEYA SEE IT?
I ARGUE THAT SINCE 1828 THE MOST JACKSONIAN CANDIDATE HAS ALWAYS ONE.
WUTTYA TINK?
Didn't catch the article, but thanks for pointing it out!
I would counter that the 1912 election demonstrated that a Jacksonian typical candidate (Theodore Roosevelt) did not win and, instead, split republican support and allowed Woodrow Wilson into office. I have not taken a look at that election in detail, that said the aftermath of Woodrow Wilson I have covered a few times, and the groundwork for much in the way of problems we see today is due to that era of politics:
10 Years that changed the path of America
Wilsonianism and the start of Transnationalism
When change is not progress
The thesis is that conditions set by Washington, Jackson, and Lincoln during the 19th century suffered due to social activism by both the Right and Left. TR actually set the US up for two major ongoing problems by his early push for the use of international institutions that he would later repudiate out of office. His move on the opium trade would require the US to try and find ways to shift from its 19th century basis of law which gives the individual high leeway on a National level, giving very few rights to the federal government.
Wilson would run for re-election on a isolationist stance while also increasing the overall scope of the federal government. He would also use his oratory to start pushing liberal politics to the Left, by trying to redefine human rights outside the basis of the Declaration and Constitution. When the US goes wishy-washy on things, it goes whole hog, and the initial problematical direction set up by TR was then picked up by Taft and then it crossed party lines to be picked up by Wilson. Until that point in time the Republican party had a strong basis of affiliation with the working class and was able to hold on to that right to the end of TR's administration. It was Jackson's support for the common, working man that TR sought to bring to the Republican party and his inability to make it stick has cost the Republicans many elections and ceded rhetorical ground to the Democrats.
In general, however, it is a workable thesis as the US population, up to the mid-1970's has always understand that *any* President is also a War President. Carter changed that along with the shift of the Democratic party from its Jacksonian base which, to this day, means a leveling of the two parties, but a walking out of Jacksonians on politics. We no longer have a strong *party* in the Jacksonian mode: there is now avowedly Nationalist party. America is poorer for that, and until we hear from the Nationalist wing of EITHER party, we will continue to have a '50/50' nation that is, in acuality '30/30/30/10'... the last 30 Jacksonians (and similar) and the final 5-10% the perennially disaffected the US has always had. The two parties can't describe a three viewpoint Nation and so we flounder.
jackson himself lost in 1824 against JQA - ina multi-candidate race.
three-ways change the dynamic.
i discussed this in my post.
(much is based on hofstadter's anti-intellectualism in american life.)
also: i was describing the impression of the CANDIDATE'S personal qualities and not party politics.
the more jacksonian candidate - the one with more jacksonian appeal - has won almost every race since 1824.
iow: MOST RACES HAVE BEEN A RE-RUN OF THE 1828 RACE.
two-man races, that is (or where third party candidates have a lesser effect. as in 2000. Perot has a big effect, but clinton was able to cast himself as more jacksonian than ghwbush.
i would argue that HILLARY is trying to do that within the dem contest and will try again in the fall should she win the nomination.
i think the other dems are running as... EUGENE DEBS!
Post a Comment