John Boehner: My Friend Jeb Bush Would Make a 'Great President'

[Relic]

Good thread... I'm late to the party.

A few years back, in one of these forums I started a thread by asking a very simple question.

"How do you define conservatism?"

Lots of good stuff here.
The definition of conservatism is an interesting one. I find extremes to be off putting. The "true conservative" raises a red flag with me, almost as much as a hardcore leftist. I figure if someone is rigidly, dogmatically adhering to an ideology, they likely aren't giving it the thought it deserves.
I have a fairly naive view of conservatism. I am a conservative person in my personal life. That is, careful, pragmatic, generally risk averse, and I attempt to be analytical. To me, a "real conservative" in the political realm, is someone who acknowledges we were given an amazing platform to work with, (the constitution). That platform is to be respected, and modified or circumvented with very serious deliberation. Finances? Approach them as I do my personal finances, avoid debt where possible, spend only what you have, unless there is an exceptional situation. Social engineering is a disaster, be careful, and very deliberate with any social programs or changes. Back to the constitution, and my libertarian leanings, the federal government should have defense as it's primary goal. The federal government can and should consult with the states to do "big things". I am a fan of the space program that Obama euthanized. I know a true conservative would prefer a private solution. Having said that, the federal government should be careful, pragmatic, and analytic when contemplating "big things".
The federal government is not our parent. The federal government should provide for defense, coordinate doing big things, and leave us the heck alone.

I know that's nebulous, but it is a bit like trying to nail jello to a tree.

[Bigun]

And I would add one more thought to this before I take my leave.

If we had a government in which all the participants honored the oaths they swear and strictly followed the Constitution it would't matter much who the president was! In fact he would likely be much more like the president of Switzerland who rides to work on public transport and no one knows his name.

[MACVSOG68]

The difference being that with private organizations there is this thing called  making a profit which does not come into play in government organizations.

Definitely a difference though with the very large private organizations it's more of a distinction rather than a difference.  Their existence is very interwoven with the government through regulation, oversight, personnel exchanges, tax benefits, and as we saw a few years ago...bailouts.

But both want to grow, and that growth has to be contained at times.  Both can be rife with fraud and abuse.  And both can harm society when things go awry. There will always be a relationship between the private and public sectors, but where the balance should be depends on where one stands in the political spectrum.

[Luis Gonzalez]

And that’s Jeb Bush’s problem. He’s antagonized the base on hot-button issues such as immigration and the Common Core curriculum, without trying to persuade anyone he’s conservative enough.

Qualifying what constitutes "the base" of the GOP as being the more conservative segment of the membership as opposed to the more moderate is a misnomer.

The bulk of the GOP membership lies closer to the middle of the ideological divide between left and right, than to the right edge of it. If "the base" (the base of anything being that portion of the thing where the bulk of the weight or area which supports it or secures it in place is found) of the party at large was indeed that portion of the membership that resides closer to the right edge than to the center of political ideology, then conservatives would be winning national Presidential primaries, and not endlessly complaining about the GOP "picking" one RINO or another to run on the national ticket.

If one were to envision the membership of the GOP stacked up on rows, where the rows were populated according to the degree of "conservatism" of the Party membership, you would find that the end result would have that group formed into a triangle with the point of it being populated by the most conservative members of the GOP and the bottom being densely populated by people who are registered Republicans but generally inattentive to politics, and more liberal than those residing at the point.

To describe the point of that triangle as the base of it is architecturally absurd.
 

[Luis Gonzalez]

And I would add one more thought to this before I take my leave.

If we had a government in which all the participants honored the oaths they swear and strictly followed the Constitution it would't matter much who the president was! In fact he would likely be much more like the president of Switzerland who rides to work on public transport and no one knows his name.

According to whose definition of what the Constitution means?

[Bigun]

According to whose definition of what the Constitution means?

According to the men who wrote it's definition and there is PLENTY of material  to enable us to learn what they intended!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Lots of good stuff here.
The definition of conservatism is an interesting one. I find extremes to be off putting. The "true conservative" raises a red flag with me, almost as much as a hardcore leftist. I figure if someone is rigidly, dogmatically adhering to an ideology, they likely aren't giving it the thought it deserves.
I have a fairly naive view of conservatism. I am a conservative person in my personal life. That is, careful, pragmatic, generally risk averse, and I attempt to be analytical. To me, a "real conservative" in the political realm, is someone who acknowledges we were given an amazing platform to work with, (the constitution). That platform is to be respected, and modified or circumvented with very serious deliberation. Finances? Approach them as I do my personal finances, avoid debt where possible, spend only what you have, unless there is an exceptional situation. Social engineering is a disaster, be careful, and very deliberate with any social programs or changes. Back to the constitution, and my libertarian leanings, the federal government should have defense as it's primary goal. The federal government can and should consult with the states to do "big things". I am a fan of the space program that Obama euthanized. I know a true conservative would prefer a private solution. Having said that, the federal government should be careful, pragmatic, and analytic when contemplating "big things".
The federal government is not our parent. The federal government should provide for defense, coordinate doing big things, and leave us the heck alone.

I know that's nebulous, but it is a bit like trying to nail jello to a tree.

Exactly.

Here's a thought on your post...

Social engineering is a disaster.

What exactly IS social engineering?

Many would say that it is the act of artificially restricting the normal changes in society, or to try and diminish the natural transition of society away from how things used to be and be done by engaging the force of government.

Here's a rather simplistic view of right vs. left political activity.

Generally speaking, the left spends its energy trying to make people do things they don't want to do, and the right spends theirs trying to stop people from doing things they want to do.

That's very general in scope, but we can fit damned near every social issue that's being debated today into those two boxes.

[Bigun]

You make good arguments Luis but they aren't worth much when the postulate you base them on is wrong as I believe it is in this case!

The bulk of the GOP membership lies closer to the middle of the ideological divide between left and right, than to the right edge of it. "

I think it just the opposite in fact and that is with forty years of perspective from within the beast.

[Bigun]

Exactly.

Here's a thought on your post...

Social engineering is a disaster.

What exactly IS social engineering?

Many would say that it is the act of artificially restricting the normal changes in society, or to try and diminish the natural transition of society away from how things used to be and be done by engaging the force of government.

Here's a rather simplistic view of right vs. left political activity.

Generally speaking, the left spends its energy trying to make people do things they don't want to do, and the right spends theirs trying to stop people from doing things they want to do.

That's very general in scope, but we can fit damned near every social issue that's being debated today into those two boxes.

Social engineering is the science of trying to get people to conform to norms that whatever group prescribe and I have no problem with it at all UNTIL they start to use the tools of government to do it! THEN it becomes a HUGE problem!

[alicewonders]

You make good arguments Luis but they aren't worth much when the postulate you base them on is wrong as I believe it is in this case!

I think it just the opposite in fact and that is with forty years of perspective from within the beast.

I think you're right Bigun.  I think the problem "the conservative base" has is fundamentally tied to our philosophy of INDIVIDUALISM.  The very nature of it means that we each have our own strong ideas and we don't necessarily "run in packs".  We are each more of the lone wolf type and it is difficult to keep us from fighting each other for power struggles, etc. 

It is what makes us strong, while at the same time it is what makes us weak. 

[Bigun]

I think you're right Bigun.  I think the problem "the conservative base" has is fundamentally tied to our philosophy of INDIVIDUALISM.  The very nature of it means that we each have our own strong ideas and we don't necessarily "run in packs".  We are each more of the lone wolf type and it is difficult to keep us from fighting each other for power struggles, etc. 

It is what makes us strong, while at the same time it is what makes us weak.

BRAVO Alice!!! You are EXACTLY right! It is our strength and our weakness!

[Luis Gonzalez]

According to the men who wrote it's definition and there is PLENTY of material  to enable us to learn what they intended!

That's just it.

They wrote a very open and pliable set of instructions, and the ONLY thing that is law is the Constitution itself, not their personal opinions on what the Constitution means.

So when you say "strictly follow the Constitution" you are saying "strictly follow my personal understanding of what the Constitution has to say on any given subject", which means that there are hundreds of millions of possible interpretations of what constitutes adhering to the Constitution, since we are all equal citizens with the same right to interpret the document that you have.

Here's the single most pertinent part of that Constitution:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution which delegates the power of defining marriage to the Federal government, yet Conservatives overwhelmingly and enthusiastically supported the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had the Federal government defining what constituted marriage, and inviting those States which shared the Congressional distaste for sane-sex marriages to ignore the Constitution:

Federal Defense of Marriage Act:

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Compare that to the Supreme Law of the Land:

Constitution of the United States

Article IV, Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

How do you marry those two?

If Congress only possesses those powers  that are delegated to it by the Constitution, where this power to legislate a wholesale exemption to the Constitution come from?

Conservatives are every bit as willing as progressives to violate the Constitution to forward their agenda.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Social engineering is the science of trying to get people to conform to norms that whatever group prescribe and I have no problem with it at all UNTIL they start to use the tools of government to do it! THEN it becomes a HUGE problem!

You mean like one group of people using government to stop another group of people from marrying each other because the greater group as more political power?

[Luis Gonzalez]

You make good arguments Luis but they aren't worth much when the postulate you base them on is wrong as I believe it is in this case!

I think it just the opposite in fact and that is with forty years of perspective from within the beast.

Yeah?

Then why can't conservatives win Presidential primaries?

The proof that you're wrong lies in the fact that you can't win what is essentially a consensus of right-wing political opinion.

[Bigun]

We have the power to amend the Constitution Luis. We were given that in the document itself but there is a prescribed procedure to follow so edicts from on high won't cut it!

To properly understand what the Constitution means require a maximum of two things! The ability to read and properly interpret the English language as it was used at the time the document was written and the ability to define the intent of the writers from the historical record of the writing of the document.

[Chieftain]

Any Republican is preferable to any democrat.

Pretty broad statement and not even close to being true.  There are plenty of lousy Republican candidates out there....and Jeb Bush is one of 'em.

Soy un perdedor!

[Bigun]

You mean like one group of people using government to stop another group of people from marrying each other because the greater group as more political power?

Yep! I personally don't care what tow people decide to do privately but I care a great deal when they try to shove THEIR choices down MY throat via the government!

I was married 46 years ago Luis! In a CHURCH by my own choice and did not nor do not now expect anyone to provide me anything as a result of that action.

 I suspect that most people would have little problem with what two people chose to do IF that choice did not obligate THEM to pay for the results of their choices!

[Bigun]

Yeah?

Then why can't conservatives win Presidential primaries?

The proof that you're wrong lies in the fact that you can't win what is essentially a consensus of right-wing political opinion.

Because of the way the primaries are currently structured and the fact that there are so many of them vs the non conservatives! Simple as that!

[sinkspur]

Pretty broad statement and not even close to being true.  There are plenty of lousy Republican candidates out there....and Jeb Bush is one of 'em.

Soy un perdedor!

No, it's true.  Any Republican will add to the GOP Caucus in each House, thus furthering Republican and conservative efforts.

To vote for a Democrat (any Democrat) is to enable Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

Never, ever, EVER vote for a Democrat.

[Bigun]

No, it's true.  Any Republican will add to the GOP Caucus in each House, thus furthering Republican and conservative efforts.

To vote for a Democrat (any Democrat) is to enable Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

Never, ever, EVER vote for a Democrat.

AGREED!!!

You could not make me vote for one at ANY level if you held a gun on me! That does not mean that I have to vote FOR someone else! I think we saw exactly that in the last presidential election!

[Luis Gonzalez]

We have the power to amend the Constitution Luis. We were given that in the document itself but there is a prescribed procedure to follow so edicts from on high won't cut it!

To properly understand what the Constitution means require a maximum of two things! The ability to read and properly interpret the English language as it was used at the time the document was written and the ability to define the intent of the writers from the historical record of the writing of the document.

Once again, that is YOUR interpretation of what constitutes understanding the Constitution.

You have no more right than anyone else to decide what constitutes interpreting the Constitution, and that's the point.

The intent of the writers is arguably a guideline, but the writers themselves had differing opinions on what the document meant.

The issue at hand is exactly whose understanding to use when fixing the meaning of the Constitution.  The people responsible for drafting the document?  The delegates who actually ratified it?  Or the American people in whose name they drafted and ratified it?

Those were all very differing opinions, even at the time of drafting and ratification.

Conservatives at large tend to use Madison's Federalist Papers to divine the Founder's intent, and that seems to make sense seeing as to how it was Madison who drafted the document and Madison sho is called the Father of the Constitution, but in fact Madison LOST the fight over the power structure set in place by the Constitution.

The ONE thing Madison and his opponents all agreed on was that the people wee sovereign, and that the Constitution was crafted in behalf of the people, not to rule over the people, so when you say that we have the power to amend the Constitution, you're only partially correct.

As a sovereign people, we also have the power to overturn it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Because of the way the primaries are currently structured and the fact that there are so many of them vs the non conservatives! Simple as that!

So if everything would be different, then conservatives would win.

That's an excuse and a bad one at that. There isn't even an attempt at explaining what exactly you meant.

In that world, the Detroit Lions' win/loss record is a product of an unfair league, and not related to how badly they play the game of football.

The whole "blame it on some externality" thing is the realm of liberals Bigun.

Conservatives don't win because they field terrible candidates and can't put enough votes in the ballot box.

"... the fact that there are so many of them vs the non conservatives!"

That is uniquely bizarre.

So what you're saying is that there are too many conservative candidates running against few non-conservatives and that the conservative vote is split?

So what happens then to those conservative voters as the field narrows and conservative candidates drop from the races?

Do they NOT rally behind the remaining conservative?

Are you suggesting that they either stop voting once "their guy" drops out or throw their support behind one of the remaining non-conservative candidates?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yep! I personally don't care what tow people decide to do privately but I care a great deal when they try to shove THEIR choices down MY throat via the government!

I was married 46 years ago Luis! In a CHURCH by my own choice and did not nor do not now expect anyone to provide me anything as a result of that action.

 I suspect that most people would have little problem with what two people chose to do IF that choice did not obligate THEM to pay for the results of their choices!

Who is making you pay for a gay wedding Bigun?

[MACVSOG68]

You make good arguments Luis but they aren't worth much when the postulate you base them on is wrong as I believe it is in this case!

I think it just the opposite in fact and that is with forty years of perspective from within the beast.

As Luis mentioned, the nominations of Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, Ford, and yes even Reagan show that Republicans want their candidates to appeal to moderates.  You have to go back to Goldwater, IMO, to find one who had limited appeal to the middle of the political spectrum.

[Bigun]

The issue at hand is exactly whose understanding to use when fixing the meaning of the Constitution.

We first look to the actual plain English words they wrote down.  That is what was ratified regardless of what anyone might have THOUGHT they were ratifying.

If the words are unclear (a VERY rare thing i would imagine) then we look to the notes of the men in the room at the time! (There are no words to read in the shadows of the Constitution!)