Compromise and Pyrrhic Victories
Recently Fred Barnes launched a rather harsh attack on ``paleocons`` who refuse to follow Party and President blindly. (It appears a paleocon is anyone who doesn`t drink Bush kool-aid.) Steven Warshawski fires back in the American Spectator.
For the record, I don`t agree with Pat Buchanan in many areas; I don`t like his protectionist views, his pro-union policies, his anti-war stand. He clearly does not speak for my brand of conservativism, yet Barnes is placing me squarely in his camp. It is true, I`ve always seen myself as paleo rather than neo, but I`m hardly a ``take my ball and go home`` type. I DO believe in free trade, in competition, in the need for America to take the lead in world events (since there are no other ``white hat`` nations willing to step up.) This, some would say, makes me a neo. So what am I, neo or paleo? These terms are less than well defined, and to use neo or paleo as epithets is less than useful.
I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again; the party is for our pleasure, we are not for the pleasure of the party. If the Republicans abandon our principles we must call them on the carpet. If they leave us completely we must look elsewhere. It`s that simple. The party is a means, and not an end.
Don`t misunderstand; I`m not advocating an inflexible approach where we surrender any hope of viability in the interest of ideological purity. There IS a brand of conservativism willing to do just that-and they are hopelessly foolish. They accomplish nothing, except to feed their sense of self-righteousness. The greater their failure to actually influence events, the higher their self-admiration rises! This has been the path many liberals have taken for decades, and we conservatives have laughed at them for this. This is the Move-On, Michael Moore, moonbat approach. There are some conservatives willing to follow in their footsteps.
What use is a movement if victory is not the ultimate goal? This requires some compromise and a willingness to take the small win, or even the tie, when necessary. (Look at Hockey; you take the ties on the road and plan on winning at home.)
But compromise should not be surrender, and this Kool-aid drinking mentality-anything to advance the party-is just wrong. We cannot allow ourselves to compromise everything for political success. The old country clubbers in the Republican Party were like that; they were happy to compromise anything to maintain their position. This is a loser`s strategy. Too much compromise means no effort is being made at winning, and it means that there are no other goals except capturing more ballots.
We are conservatives! We have a vision, an agenda, and a purpose. We have things we believe in, and things we want for America. We want to restore the good that has been lost to the advances of liberalism, we want our optimism, our vision of freedom and opportunity to be the guiding principles employed when facing new and possibly dangerous situations. If we sacrifice our principles for expediency we will become, well, Democrats. That is why the kook fringe has taken over the party of Truman; the Dems sacrificed principle for dominance for so long that they became bereft of leadership. The Kooks were the only principled members of the party remaining, so they have taken control. But, of course, the Kooks are precisely that...
The old guard of the Republicans were the same way, and Reagan easily swept them aside. They have nurtured a grudge, and want their party back. They would love to regain control of ``their`` party, and a return to the ease and comforts of loyal opposition status. (They have been making inroads with this current Administration.) They would love to pull control of the Republicans out of conservative hands, and it is necessary for us to assert ourselves on occasion. If we believe the President is compromising too much, we have to make our opinions clear; we have to remind him who it was who put him there, and for what purpose. President Bush is supposed to be our man, not the country clubbers, and not the Democrats. Ours.
Sometimes there are more important issues at stake. Mr. Barnes doesn`t seem to understand that there are battles, and there is the war. We need to remember what we are fighting for!
For the record, I don`t agree with Pat Buchanan in many areas; I don`t like his protectionist views, his pro-union policies, his anti-war stand. He clearly does not speak for my brand of conservativism, yet Barnes is placing me squarely in his camp. It is true, I`ve always seen myself as paleo rather than neo, but I`m hardly a ``take my ball and go home`` type. I DO believe in free trade, in competition, in the need for America to take the lead in world events (since there are no other ``white hat`` nations willing to step up.) This, some would say, makes me a neo. So what am I, neo or paleo? These terms are less than well defined, and to use neo or paleo as epithets is less than useful.
I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again; the party is for our pleasure, we are not for the pleasure of the party. If the Republicans abandon our principles we must call them on the carpet. If they leave us completely we must look elsewhere. It`s that simple. The party is a means, and not an end.
Don`t misunderstand; I`m not advocating an inflexible approach where we surrender any hope of viability in the interest of ideological purity. There IS a brand of conservativism willing to do just that-and they are hopelessly foolish. They accomplish nothing, except to feed their sense of self-righteousness. The greater their failure to actually influence events, the higher their self-admiration rises! This has been the path many liberals have taken for decades, and we conservatives have laughed at them for this. This is the Move-On, Michael Moore, moonbat approach. There are some conservatives willing to follow in their footsteps.
What use is a movement if victory is not the ultimate goal? This requires some compromise and a willingness to take the small win, or even the tie, when necessary. (Look at Hockey; you take the ties on the road and plan on winning at home.)
But compromise should not be surrender, and this Kool-aid drinking mentality-anything to advance the party-is just wrong. We cannot allow ourselves to compromise everything for political success. The old country clubbers in the Republican Party were like that; they were happy to compromise anything to maintain their position. This is a loser`s strategy. Too much compromise means no effort is being made at winning, and it means that there are no other goals except capturing more ballots.
We are conservatives! We have a vision, an agenda, and a purpose. We have things we believe in, and things we want for America. We want to restore the good that has been lost to the advances of liberalism, we want our optimism, our vision of freedom and opportunity to be the guiding principles employed when facing new and possibly dangerous situations. If we sacrifice our principles for expediency we will become, well, Democrats. That is why the kook fringe has taken over the party of Truman; the Dems sacrificed principle for dominance for so long that they became bereft of leadership. The Kooks were the only principled members of the party remaining, so they have taken control. But, of course, the Kooks are precisely that...
The old guard of the Republicans were the same way, and Reagan easily swept them aside. They have nurtured a grudge, and want their party back. They would love to regain control of ``their`` party, and a return to the ease and comforts of loyal opposition status. (They have been making inroads with this current Administration.) They would love to pull control of the Republicans out of conservative hands, and it is necessary for us to assert ourselves on occasion. If we believe the President is compromising too much, we have to make our opinions clear; we have to remind him who it was who put him there, and for what purpose. President Bush is supposed to be our man, not the country clubbers, and not the Democrats. Ours.
Sometimes there are more important issues at stake. Mr. Barnes doesn`t seem to understand that there are battles, and there is the war. We need to remember what we are fighting for!
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:10 AM
3 Comments:
Meanwhile....The chairman of CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations) has been elected to the Florida ACLU. Read it here and check out the links for proof:
http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/03/huh.html#links
Why is it that the ACLU, under the guise of defending civil rights, defends SO MANY radicals that are actually trying to destroy this country, its laws and civil liberties? (e.g. American Nazis, Communists, Islamists etc).
No political party ought to associate with them, but the Dems are tight with them. It is the ACLU that repeatedly undermines and betrays us into the hands of totalitarianism.
Amen Brutha. I will take some comprimise but conservative principles are such that you work hard for them. No koolaid drinker here.
Al of Alnot
I wonder what things at the Weekly Standard were like if the adminstration weren't serving their particular brand of kol-aid. It's interesting too to think about this vis-a-vis the reception Bruce Bartlett's book has been getting where he's argued that fiscally and in certain domestic policies, Bush isn't a conservative.
Mattias Caro |
Post a Comment
<< Home