Is It Time for Conservatives to Ditch the Tea Party?

[Luis Gonzalez]

The whole package is damaged.  The vehicle (Republican Party) is not cool - only concerned with protecting rich white men - according to the media's wildly successful portrayal.  I'm just about at the point where I think it would take too long to change that perception, especially with young people.  I think we need a completely new makeover and new spokespeople to convey our message. 

Instead of constantly talking about how the Democrats promise freebies to worthless do-nothings - we should be enlightening people about how the Democrats (and Republicans)  - ergo Washington DC - are actually THE biggest corporation in the US!  When you can relate "corporate greed" to how the government treats us little people - I think you can start to reach the young people that have been indoctrinated to have this "knee-jerk" reaction to the concept of "corporations".

We need an American Party.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I completely understand what you are saying Alice.  You can look at recent history for two distinct ways that younger people were reached by a political/governance message.  On one hand (especially for 2008), the 0bama campaign was very successful in reaching out to masses of the "brain dead" (I will use that term as a convenient shorthand, fully understanding that not all that responded were brain dead, in fact, some small portion were fully cognizant of the radical agenda that would soon be unleashed) younger folks by basically projecting an image of "the young, hip, black guy is really cool and is going to fix everything that that damn old, rich, white guy screwed up."  All it took was a splashy social media presence, getting a lot of young pop culture icons on board, and well, the rest is history.  (The take away from this was how easy it was to manipulate a mass of non-thinking youth.)

On the other hand, what was the only other political/governance movement of recent time to attract a groundswell of support and popularity from younger people?

Ron Paul.

In so many ways the Liberty Movement that grew out of his 2008 & 2012 campaigns attracted almost the polar opposite of the "0bama Youth."  (Again, I am going to generalize for the point of the discussion, certainly there were/are exceptional examples of what many like to blanket categorize as "typical" Ron Paul supporters: pot smoking hippy kids.)  But in general, these were/are young people that are using their brains, thinking about the overwhelming encroachment of government and cronyism in our everyday lives, and responding to the same messages about Freedom, Liberty, and Natural rights that our Founders discussed and enshrined in the Constitution.  The Liberty Movement is also "young, hip, and cool" but it is not a set of empty, meaningless platitudes.  It focuses on many of the same principles and ideals that most posters here hold in high regard. 

(And yes, as a matter of full disclosure, I personally have supported and voted for Ron Paul every chance that I had.  And my late 20s son has been very active in the Liberty Movement.  So yes, I speak from much personal experience in this matter, and can be called a "Paulbot" by anyone that chooses to use that term.)

My reason for describing all of this is, not to set myself up as a target for the name callers, but rather to suggest an example of how something that you are talking about actually has worked.  In some sense, the Liberty Movement has found a way to make being a "Patriot" (to use EC's label from above) cool, hip, and relevant to a large portion of the younger generations.  The problem that we run into, as witnessed by the numerous discussions in all of the Tea Party threads of late, is the there are two segments of the overall "conservative" superset that can not be comfortable in all aspects of the Liberty Movement.  Of course those segments are the 'neocons' that reject the principle of non-interventionism out of hand, and the 'social conservatives' that don't understand that it is not a legitimate role of government to legislate morality.

I guess, all that I am suggesting is that we do have a ready made example of how the younger generations can respond to a message of government constrained by the Constitution, personal liberty and freedom, and the beauty of the operation of a free market economy.  To me, this is probably the best starting point to attracting and gaining young people in significant numbers to eventually make a difference.

Agree... agree... agree.

Bravo.

[olde north church]

Sometimes it's a matter of you exclude.  Such as white, heterosexual men.

[katzenjammer]

Agree... agree... agree.

Bravo.

LOL!

Although we may approach things from a different perspective, we probably agree on far more than we disagree!!   

[Luis Gonzalez]

LOL!

Although we may approach things from a different perspective, we probably agree on far more than we disagree!!   

Pour yourself a fresh cup of coffee, pull up a comfortable chair and check this out.

Long, but well worth ii.

Constitutional Conservatism. A way forward for a troubled political coalition.

[katzenjammer]

Pour yourself a fresh cup of coffee, pull up a comfortable chair and check this out.

Long, but well worth ii.

Constitutional Conservatism. A way forward for a troubled political coalition.

Thanks, opened in a new tab for later.  Have to force myself to get to some stores now before it gets much later......

[MACVSOG68]

Burke detested the French Revolution's descent into anarchy, which is tyranny of another sort, and atheism. In contrast, he saw the American Revolution as building a new society founded on the essential cornerstones of order, law, God and liberty.

Exactly my point in distinguishing radicals from conservatives.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Exactly my point in distinguishing radicals from conservatives.

I'm not understanding your point.

Are you saying that the American Revolution was carried out by conservatives and not radicals?

[MACVSOG68]

I'm not understanding your point.

Are you saying that the American Revolution was carried out by conservatives and not radicals?

Yes, that was how Burke distinguished between the two. 

"I should, therefore, suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France until I was informed how it had been combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience of armies, with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue, with morality and religion, with the solidity of property, with peace and order, with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things, too, and without them liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long."

The ideal compliment of liberty and government which support each other is a conservative value and men can be driven to fight for it.  The goals and results can justify the means.

President Lincoln considered himself a strong conservative, yet was not unwilling to go to war.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yes, that was how Burke distinguished between the two. 

"I should, therefore, suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France until I was informed how it had been combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience of armies, with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue, with morality and religion, with the solidity of property, with peace and order, with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things, too, and without them liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long."

The ideal compliment of liberty and government which support each other is a conservative value and men can be driven to fight for it.  The goals and results can justify the means.

President Lincoln considered himself a strong conservative, yet was not unwilling to go to war.

We are going to have to disagree on the notion that the people who wrote what could be two of the three most radical documents in the history of Western civilization (Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Magna Carta) were conservatives.

They were radicals.

The difference between the American radicals and the French radicals was reason and measure.

You don't seek to overthrow an eons-old system of government (the Divine Rights of Kings) and replace it with one founded on the God-given rights of men, and NOT be a radical.

The ideal compliment of liberty and government which support each other is a conservative value

Which did not exist prior to the American Revolution. It's hard to conserve something that didn't exist before you.

[Bigun]

I completely understand what you are saying Alice.  You can look at recent history for two distinct ways that younger people were reached by a political/governance message.  On one hand (especially for 2008), the 0bama campaign was very successful in reaching out to masses of the "brain dead" (I will use that term as a convenient shorthand, fully understanding that not all that responded were brain dead, in fact, some small portion were fully cognizant of the radical agenda that would soon be unleashed) younger folks by basically projecting an image of "the young, hip, black guy is really cool and is going to fix everything that that damn old, rich, white guy screwed up."  All it took was a splashy social media presence, getting a lot of young pop culture icons on board, and well, the rest is history.  (The take away from this was how easy it was to manipulate a mass of non-thinking youth.)

On the other hand, what was the only other political/governance movement of recent time to attract a groundswell of support and popularity from younger people?

Ron Paul.

In so many ways the Liberty Movement that grew out of his 2008 & 2012 campaigns attracted almost the polar opposite of the "0bama Youth."  (Again, I am going to generalize for the point of the discussion, certainly there were/are exceptional examples of what many like to blanket categorize as "typical" Ron Paul supporters: pot smoking hippy kids.)  But in general, these were/are young people that are using their brains, thinking about the overwhelming encroachment of government and cronyism in our everyday lives, and responding to the same messages about Freedom, Liberty, and Natural rights that our Founders discussed and enshrined in the Constitution.  The Liberty Movement is also "young, hip, and cool" but it is not a set of empty, meaningless platitudes.  It focuses on many of the same principles and ideals that most posters here hold in high regard. 

(And yes, as a matter of full disclosure, I personally have supported and voted for Ron Paul every chance that I had.  And my late 20s son has been very active in the Liberty Movement.  So yes, I speak from much personal experience in this matter, and can be called a "Paulbot" by anyone that chooses to use that term.)

My reason for describing all of this is, not to set myself up as a target for the name callers, but rather to suggest an example of how something that you are talking about actually has worked.  In some sense, the Liberty Movement has found a way to make being a "Patriot" (to use EC's label from above) cool, hip, and relevant to a large portion of the younger generations.  The problem that we run into, as witnessed by the numerous discussions in all of the Tea Party threads of late, is the there are two segments of the overall "conservative" superset that can not be comfortable in all aspects of the Liberty Movement.  Of course those segments are the 'neocons' that reject the principle of non-interventionism out of hand, and the 'social conservatives' that don't understand that it is not a legitimate role of government to legislate morality.

I guess, all that I am suggesting is that we do have a ready made example of how the younger generations can respond to a message of government constrained by the Constitution, personal liberty and freedom, and the beauty of the operation of a free market economy.  To me, this is probably the best starting point to attracting and gaining young people in significant numbers to eventually make a difference.

Well said Katz! Well said indeed!

I have personally known Dr. Paul for more than 40 years. (he once lived three doors down from me, was my wife's gynecologist, and delivered my youngest son into this world) I was there working to help get him elected when he first ran for congress in 1975 and have maintained a relationship with him since though I rarely see him these days. I agree with him on a LOT of things (in case you haven't noticed there is a very strong libertarian streak in me LOL) but where we part company is in the area of foreign policy. (if you want to attach the neocon label to me feel free) I do not believe that we any longer have the option of non intervention in this increasingly small world and feel strongly enough about it that I could not and cannot support him for the presidency for that reason alone.

[MACVSOG68]

We are going to have to disagree on the notion that the people who wrote what could be two of the three most radical documents in the history of Western civilization (Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Magna Carta) were conservatives.

Heck Luis, we can't agree on everything...

The Magna Carta was designed to end rebellions and try to create a better balance between crown and people.  It wasn't the first of its kind, but probably the most important for a few centuries, though it didn't ultimately stop a revolution in England.

The Declaration of Independence was designed to start a rebellion because that balance between crown and colonies had deteriorated. 

The Constitution was simply an attempt to improve on the Articles of Confederation, which in the latter case was designed to bring the colonies into a legitimate form of government.

All three were attempts at defining the role of government and where the liberty of its people were formally outlined.  Radical yes.  But did set standards for a conservative philosophy.

Which did not exist prior to the American Revolution. It's hard to conserve something that didn't exist before you.

The term didn't define the philosophy.  What Burke did (while justifying a monarchy) was to bring words and meanings people could understand to the principle that a government can coexist with its people, who have undeniable rights, and each having a responsibility to that coexistence.

A conservative will do everything reasonable to maintain that important balance, but is not above using radical avenues to do so.  IMHO.  Real radicalism today is designed to diminish that balance. 

[olde north church]

...

The Magna Carta was designed to end rebellions and try to create a better balance between crown and people.  It wasn't the first of its kind, but probably the most important for a few centuries, though it didn't ultimately stop a revolution in England.

...

I don't believe the Magna Carta was about the relationship between the Crown and the people as much as the Crown and the Nobility.  Don't believe anybody cared too much about Joseph "Six Bowls Of Gruel". 
Like most things in history, wasn't what man could control but what he couldn't.  The plague led more to the rights of man than probably anything before or since.  Distributed wealth very well.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Heck Luis, we can't agree on everything...

The Magna Carta was designed to end rebellions and try to create a better balance between crown and people.  It wasn't the first of its kind, but probably the most important for a few centuries, though it didn't ultimately stop a revolution in England.

The Declaration of Independence was designed to start a rebellion because that balance between crown and colonies had deteriorated. 

The Constitution was simply an attempt to improve on the Articles of Confederation, which in the latter case was designed to bring the colonies into a legitimate form of government.

All three were attempts at defining the role of government and where the liberty of its people were formally outlined.  Radical yes.  But did set standards for a conservative philosophy.

The term didn't define the philosophy.  What Burke did (while justifying a monarchy) was to bring words and meanings people could understand to the principle that a government can coexist with its people, who have undeniable rights, and each having a responsibility to that coexistence.

A conservative will do everything reasonable to maintain that important balance, but is not above using radical avenues to do so.  IMHO.  Real radicalism today is designed to diminish that balance.

That's not radicalism any longer, that's more and more establishment.

The radicalism that's missing today is the one that will turn the current system (the one that you spoke about) upside down, and reestablish the people as the repository of all power so that the balance is restored.

One massive issue with conservatives, is that in the name of conservatism, they restrict societal changes which expand or unrestrict rights and do it in the name of conservatism.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I don't believe the Magna Carta was about the relationship between the Crown and the people as much as the Crown and the Nobility.  Don't believe anybody cared too much about Joseph "Six Bowls Of Gruel". 
Like most things in history, wasn't what man could control but what he couldn't.  The plague led more to the rights of man than probably anything before or since.  Distributed wealth very well.

Whichever way you describe it, it was a radical document.

[olde north church]

Whichever way you describe it, it was a radical document.

What do you think the impact of the King James Bible on the politics of mankind?

[Luis Gonzalez]

What do you think the impact of the King James Bible on the politics of mankind?

Massive, but it isn't a document.

[MACVSOG68]

One massive issue with conservatives, is that in the name of conservatism, they restrict societal changes which expand or unrestrict rights and do it in the name of conservatism.

Can't argue that a name can be usurped for political reasons.  Neoconservatism for example espouses implementing western style political values (which may well in themselves be conservative) on places where such values don't exist.  They are better implemented from within.  Society will change, and conservative philosophy doesn't prohibit it.  Again using the term doesn't necessarily make it so.  Just as calling oneself a progressive while attempting to shift the desired balance to the side of larger and larger government isn't necessarily so.

[olde north church]

Massive, but it isn't a document.

I meant to add "and the printing thereof".  I think you got what I meant though.

[MACVSOG68]

I don't believe the Magna Carta was about the relationship between the Crown and the people as much as the Crown and the Nobility.

The people who counted other than the nobility (barons) were the freemen, and the Charter certainly covered many of their rights, more than anything seen before, at least written down and agreed to.  Also the Church was involved, to make it a three way balancing act. 

[katzenjammer]

Well said Katz! Well said indeed!

I have personally known Dr. Paul for more than 40 years. (he once lived three doors down from me, was my wife's gynecologist, and delivered my youngest son into this world) I was there working to help get him elected when he first ran for congress in 1975 and have maintained a relationship with him since though I rarely see him these days. I agree with him on a LOT of things (in case you haven't noticed there is a very strong libertarian streak in me LOL) but where we part company is in the area of foreign policy. (if you want to attach the neocon label to me feel free) I do not believe that we any longer have the option of non intervention in this increasingly small world and feel strongly enough about it that I could not and cannot support him for the presidency for that reason alone.

That is pretty neat, Bigun!  I have never met Dr. Paul personally, but my son has on a couple of occasions.  (Due to the nature of my son's work, he had occasion to perform a needed service for the campaign in 2012 and Dr. Paul was so appreciative that he asked to have a private meeting with my son at a later date.  My son told me that Dr. Paul was most interested in talking to him about baseball at that initial meeting!  lol)

And yes, I see a very deep libertarian streak in you, as I have as well.  Like anything else about you, I assume that your opinion on non-interventionism is well reasoned and thoughtfully considered, I wouldn't label you as anything in that regard.  (In fact, I usually reserve the derisive "neo con" label for those out there that deserve it, e.g., Irving Kristol, Wolfowitz, and that ilk!!)

[katzenjammer]

Pour yourself a fresh cup of coffee, pull up a comfortable chair and check this out.

Long, but well worth ii.

Constitutional Conservatism. A way forward for a troubled political coalition.

Yes, it is a very good one, about 1/2 way through.  Should have increased the font size from the onset!!  lol