February 4, 2007

The Men Who Would Destroy Conservatism

Posted by Adam Graham in : Politics

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?-Matt. 16:26

The same question can be asked of a political party. The names of America’s political parties have long since ceased to mean anything. While certainly, there’s a difference between a Republic and a Democracy, these difference do not define our political parties and their members.

The soul of the Republican Party is conservatism. That conservatism is different than past generations, but at it’s heart the Conservatism of today believes in limited government; a wise, prudent, yet firm foreign policy; a respect for traditional values; and lower taxes.

This is in it’s essence the heart and soul of the Republican Party. The Republican platform is why I and many others are first generation Republicans. Yet, in recent years, much of the platform has become a dead letter under the leadership of President Bush. Limited government has become a cruel joke, traditional values have been fought for when convenient, and fundamental tax and social security reform has been little more than rhetoric despite six years of Bush and Republican congresses.

Conservatism was nurtured by Phyllis Schlafly, Ronald Reagan, and numerous others who created a movement that is now at risk. The risk doesn’t come from the big liberal press or any of the usual suspects, but from unprincipled folks who plan to make 2008 the year conservatism dies in the Republican Party.

The Men Who Would Be King

Across this country, people claiming the mantle of conservatism are getting set to sell people on moderate and liberal candidates whose election would mean the ultimate marginalization of conservative ideas. Let’s not kid ourselves. If the Republicans win the White House in 2008, the leader of the Republican Party will be whoever is in the White House.

You can expect with a Giuliani nomination, many platform planks will bite the dust. Mr. Giuliani has in the past described himself as coming from the same tradition as liberal New York Republicans Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits. Under Giuliani, the Republican Party will almost certainly cease to have a pro-life plank, or at the very least no one will take it seriously.

You can expect that the man who three times received the nomination of New York’s liberal party will not be the sort of man to begin to dismantle government programs, touch the third rail of Social Security in order to create a sustainable retirement system, or touch the federal income tax code.

Then we have Senator John McCain who will be able to lay claim to being pro-life despite a series of bobs and weaves on the issue of whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned. John McCain will be good on pork barrel spending, but don’t expect government to shrink under Senator McCain.

McCain in his old age has a bit of a messiah complex. You’ll never hear McCain quote the words of Ronald Reagan, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem!” McCain believes government can solve problems from political corruption to the ages old “problem” of climate change with enough regulation. Senator McCain is also not too keen on giving our money back to us and tends to believe anyone who doesn’t support his amnesty bill for illegal immigrants is a bigot.

As for conservative judges, you can forget about it. Senator McCain can be expected to appoint fairly center left jurists for a very simple reason. Strict constructionists who would overturn Roe v. Wade would also laugh at McCain-Feingold and the numerous reform bills that President McCain would dream of.

John McCain’s pretentious view of himself, the power of government to right all wrongs, and his cavalier attitude would bring the closest thing that our country has had to Fascism to the White House.

Governor Mitt Romney is a man for all seasons. He can be conservative, moderate, or liberal depending on the moment. Many conservatives have placed their faith in Governor Romney to govern as the social conservative he’s running as. Just as Massachusetts voters expected Romney to govern as the social moderate he ran as in 2002 before he realized that social conservatives were a key constituency to exploit in his quest for the 2008 White House race.

Someone whose public record has been one flip flop after another can be counted on to be consistent only in his inconsistency. By setting himself up as the conservative candidate, he guarantees that his eventual betrayal will deal a decisive blow to conservative principles.

Some believe that Romney’s metamorphosis is genuine. While I wish it were so, common sense argues against a man who has spent his entire life as the heir apparent to one of America’s top liberal Republican families “seeing the light” late in life, particularly given that his pro-life conversion story is so unbelievable that National Review’s Rick Lowry suggests he’d be better off not talking about it. Far more likely, Mr. Romney’s marriage to conservative principles is one of convenience that will be broken when no long necessary.

While these candidates’ people will swear to you up and down that they can win, they rarely if ever mention that a victory for McCain, Giuliani, or Romney is likely to set the Conservative movement back decades. Talk about a pyrrhic victory!

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Mark My Words, The Random Yak, Big Dog’s Weblog, basil’s blog, DragonLady’s World, Shadowscope, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate’s Cove, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.


  1. Comment by Mark [Visitor]

    What about Giuliani stating clearly he would appoint conservative justices? I agree about McCain, don’t trust him. What do you think of Duncan Hunter?

  2. Comment by Adam Graham [Member]

    What Rudy actually said was, “Giuliani: What I do say to conservatives, because then you want to look at, ok, what can we look to that is similar to the way that we think. I think that the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar if not exactly the same as the last two judges that were appointed.”

    As Pro-Life Blogs stated, “As anticipated, Giuliani also threw-up the vague promise possibility that he would probably nominate judges similar to John Roberts and Samuel Alito. In light of his past accolades for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg this argument is shallow and meaningless.”

    I think the problem with Rudy is we have no reason to believe that this vague statement (would he consider Anthony Kennedy “very similar” to Roberts and Alito?) to actually mean something. As well, the President holds the bully pulpit and what would Republicans be saying about a “culture of life” if they shove someone into that position who is so vehemently pro-abortion (even pro-partial birth abortion)?

    As for Duncan Hunter, on pro-life issues he’s very strong, as he is on the border. It’s those points of fiscal concern where he runs into problems.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.