Stay at home Conservatives

[olde north church]

I was watching one of those CNN shows about the 1960's, I believe it was the "Politics" episode.  They had a clip of Barry Goldwater discussing why Conservatives "stay at home" because the GOP gives them nothing, no reason to come out and vote for them.  I don't know if this was after the 1960 convention or the 1960 election.
If this is the case PRIOR to the 1960 election, why the Hell haven't the Conservatives broken off to form their own party?  Cowardice?  Polling?
Or have I misunderstood something in Goldwater's statement?
Thanks

[Oceander]

Goldwater didn't win.

[truth_seeker]

If the GOP split, then there would be two minority parties, hoping to have their "stay at home" voters come out to vote.

The claim that if the GOP were "more conservative" they would gain voters on the far right ignores they might lose two votes from the center, for each vote gained on the far right.

And Goldwater was hardly anything like what contemporary "true conservatives" want, since he was socially moderate.

True conservatives demand a candidate able to get about the same election results as did Goldwater, in 1964.

[olde north church]

I tried to find his speech on Youtube and couldn't.  I'm aware Goldwater was more libertarian in his social views, which kept and still keeps the holier than thou types at bay. 

[jmyrlefuller]

And Goldwater was hardly anything like what contemporary "true conservatives" want, since he was socially moderate.

“Moderate” is kind. He let his daughter have an abortion and his grandson live as a homosexual with no qualms whatsoever. In pre-2006 morality, he was a flaming liberal when it came to social issues.

He made Ron Paul look like Rick Santorum in comparison.

[PzLdr]

Goldwater didn't win.

Goldwater got knifed in the back, big time, by Nelson "Hiya, Fella" Rockerfeller and the GOPe. Would he have won, but for? Doubtful. But what Rocky and the Bullwinkles did was only the first of several GOPe betrayals of a Conservative who legitimately won the nomination of his party.

[olde north church]

And back to my original point, why stay where you're obviously not welcome?  Used for foot soldiers and cash. 

[PzLdr]

And back to my original point, why stay where you're obviously not welcome?  Used for foot soldiers and cash. 

Nailed it!

[olde north church]

How long did it take for the anti-Slavery Republicans to decide to split off from the Whigs?  One or two election cycles?  The Conservatives have been pussyfooting around for near 60 years.  Is it any wonder the GOP-E doesn't take them seriously?
I believe the phrase is "It's time to sh!t or get off the pot."

[massadvj]

To this day, Goldwater is the "proof" that establishment Republicans point to when they claim that conservatives cannot win general elections.  Meanwhile the Reagan example is ignored, along with the disasters of Dole, McCain and Romney.

[Oceander]

I'm fascinated by all these die-hard conservatives who want so desperately to get democrats elected, especially liberal/progressive democrats.

[olde north church]

To this day, Goldwater is the "proof" that establishment Republicans point to when they claim that conservatives cannot win general elections.  Meanwhile the Reagan example is ignored, along with the disasters of Dole, McCain and Romney.

What I'm curious about is who was supposed to be the choice over Eisenhower, Dewey, etc.,

[olde north church]

I'm fascinated by all these die-hard conservatives who want so desperately to get democrats elected, especially liberal/progressive democrats.

What was Reagan's "formula"?  Blue collar, white collar, men, women and so on?  Obviously the electorate had a higher tolerance for bs today than 30 years ago.

[Oceander]

What was Reagan's "formula"?  Blue collar, white collar, men, women and so on?  Obviously the electorate had a higher tolerance for bs today than 30 years ago.

Your point being?

It comes down to this:  once the candidates have been chosen, you have two choices, the republican candidate, or the democrat candidate; you no longer have the luxury of saying "well, I really don't like that republican, go get me another one" - you either support the republican, or else you're supporting the democrat, whether you vote or not.

And if you want to make sure that favorites like Cruz or Paul have the greatest chance of actually being able to do something - something other than throwing fits on the floor of the House or the Senate - then you would want to make sure there were as many 'R's in Congress as possible, even if some of the 'R's smelled a little too liberal for your taste.

If the republicans control Congress, then Cruz and Paul, et al, might be able to get something done because then republicans control the agenda.  If the republicans do not control Congress, then Cruz, Paul, et al, won't be able to get anything done because the republicans won't control the agenda.

And control of Congress, and therefore of the agenda, comes down to a nose count:  how many 'R's are there and how many 'D's are there.  The group with the biggest number wins.

If you refuse to help put an 'R' into Congress because you think he/she stinks, then you have as good as helped to put a 'D' into Congress instead.

[PzLdr]

What I'm curious about is who was supposed to be the choice over Eisenhower, Dewey, etc.,

Robert Taft

[PzLdr]

Your point being?

It comes down to this:  once the candidates have been chosen, you have two choices, the republican candidate, or the democrat candidate; you no longer have the luxury of saying "well, I really don't like that republican, go get me another one" - you either support the republican, or else you're supporting the democrat, whether you vote or not.

And if you want to make sure that favorites like Cruz or Paul have the greatest chance of actually being able to do something - something other than throwing fits on the floor of the House or the Senate - then you would want to make sure there were as many 'R's in Congress as possible, even if some of the 'R's smelled a little too liberal for your taste.

If the republicans control Congress, then Cruz and Paul, et al, might be able to get something done because then republicans control the agenda.  If the republicans do not control Congress, then Cruz, Paul, et al, won't be able to get anything done because the republicans won't control the agenda.

And control of Congress, and therefore of the agenda, comes down to a nose count:  how many 'R's are there and how many 'D's are there.  The group with the biggest number wins.

If you refuse to help put an 'R' into Congress because you think he/she stinks, then you have as good as helped to put a 'D' into Congress instead.

But you DON'T need us. You've got all those moderates, independents, Latinos and Blacks JUST SALIVATING over the chance to follow up the stunning victories of Dole, McCain, Romney, and those other mush heads you keep telling us we have to back to win. And in return for our votes, our money and our work, OUR candidates get screwed and stabbed in the back by the GOPe in the electoral process, our ideas and positions get ignored at best, or mocked, and we keep losing. And you tell us to win with the next sheep you put up, we have to just abandon our principles, issues that concern us, and hold our nose. 'Cause you guys know best. And you have the string of electoral wins to prove it. To quote the Lady who gets laughed at, "How's that workin' out for ya?"

[Formerly Once-Ler]

How long did it take for the anti-Slavery Republicans to decide to split off from the Whigs?  One or two election cycles?  The Conservatives have been pussyfooting around for near 60 years.  Is it any wonder the GOP-E doesn't take them seriously?
I believe the phrase is "It's time to sh!t or get off the pot."

Hear!  Hear!

[ABX]

I was watching one of those CNN shows about the 1960's, I believe it was the "Politics" episode.  They had a clip of Barry Goldwater discussing why Conservatives "stay at home" because the GOP gives them nothing, no reason to come out and vote for them.  I don't know if this was after the 1960 convention or the 1960 election.
If this is the case PRIOR to the 1960 election, why the Hell haven't the Conservatives broken off to form their own party?  Cowardice?  Polling?
Or have I misunderstood something in Goldwater's statement?
Thanks

I believe there is another philosophical angle to this that even Goldwater missed. The philosophical center for Conservatives is not the government, it is the individual. Even if they may not always argue it well or live up to it, Conservatives don't (shouldn't) look to the government for solutions or to fix their problem. They know at the core of their being that a government solution isn't a true fix. Thus, they are not as vested as a liberal in who wins the election.  This has led to a spit form Conservatives and candidates fro parties who say they are Conservative. Candidates and parties are still playing 'what can I do' game which is exactly opposite of Conservative philosophy. Doing this, they are always going to come at odds with one group of voters or another who want different action from the government, either hands off or legislate differently. If they don't like the way a candidate or party is going, it is no sweat off their brow to sit it out because their life isn't dictated by centralized government rule. Obviously for Liberals, what the government does is central to their philosophy so they rarely have a 'sit it out' class of voters.

This could digress into a whole other discussion on where candidates/parties/movements miss this point. Even the Tea Party has become a movement of government solutions(sic).

[MACVSOG68]

To this day, Goldwater is the "proof" that establishment Republicans point to when they claim that conservatives cannot win general elections.  Meanwhile the Reagan example is ignored, along with the disasters of Dole, McCain and Romney.

I think that when you use the term "conservatives", you are referring to the right wing.  Today, Reagan would be considered a mainstream or establishment republican, given some of his history as well as his penchant for working with the other side.  As a so-called conservative, he signed numerous bills which increased the deficits and debt; signed real amnesty, walked away from Lebanon, frequently lunched with Democrats, and when he accepted his party's nomination, mentioned only women's rights as a social issue. And I'm a Reagan fan.

The disasters of those you mention have a lot more to do with Republican inability to conduct strong campaigns than the conservatism of the candidates. 

I wish those on the right side of the right side of the aisle (no I didn't repeat) would understand what conservatism is.  Romney, Bush, Rubio, and yes even Christie for the most part are conservatives. 

[massadvj]

I think that when you use the term "conservatives", you are referring to the right wing.  Today, Reagan would be considered a mainstream or establishment republican, given some of his history as well as his penchant for working with the other side.  As a so-called conservative, he signed numerous bills which increased the deficits and debt; signed real amnesty, walked away from Lebanon, frequently lunched with Democrats, and when he accepted his party's nomination, mentioned only women's rights as a social issue. And I'm a Reagan fan.

The disasters of those you mention have a lot more to do with Republican inability to conduct strong campaigns than the conservatism of the candidates. 

I wish those on the right side of the right side of the aisle (no I didn't repeat) would understand what conservatism is.  Romney, Bush, Rubio, and yes even Christie for the most part are conservatives.

I don't disagree that Reagan governed as a moderate.  But he was not afraid to champion the conservative cause, and to hold himself up as a symbol of how a conservative should be and live.  For that reason, conservatives are generally willing to overlook a lot of his moderate policy initiatives.

I'd have to stretch my imagination a long way before I could swallow the idea that Romney, Bush and Christie are conservatives.  That doesn't preclude my possibly voting for them in a two way race, but if you put these three under the umbrella then the definition of conservative has no real meaning.  I'd agree that Christie is a fiscal conservative, but conservatism encompasses much more than that.

BTW, I don't even consider myself a conservative.  When people ask me what my political orientation is I usually call myself a small l libertarian, or a constitutionalist.  I don't think Rand Paul is a conservative, either.  I do think Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, Rush Limbaugh and others of their ilk are conservatives.

During the last campaign, Romney himself would not call himself a conservative, only that he applied conservative principles to his decision making.  GWB would not call himself a conservative, either.  He had to soften it with "compassionate."  In my book, if a politician is not willing to stick the label on himself, it's a pretty doggone good bet that he or she is compromised in some way. 

All that said, I think conservatism as an ideology is a loser as a proposition in a general election in the USA.  There need to be more people brought into the tent than free market advocates, patriotic and religious types.  All three of these are shrinking constituency groups.  Traditional moderation won't do it, either.  People simply won't trust it.  Only a true reformer can win against the Dem machine.

[MACVSOG68]

I don't disagree that Reagan governed as a moderate.  But he was not afraid to champion the conservative cause, and to hold himself up as a symbol of how a conservative should be and live.  For that reason, conservatives are generally willing to overlook a lot of his moderate policy initiatives.

I'd have to stretch my imagination a long way before I could swallow the idea that Romney, Bush and Christie are conservatives.  That doesn't preclude my possibly voting for them in a two way race, but if you put these three under the umbrella then the definition of conservative has no real meaning.  I'd agree that Christie is a fiscal conservative, but conservatism encompasses much more than that.

BTW, I don't even consider myself a conservative.  When people ask me what my political orientation is I usually call myself a small l libertarian, or a constitutionalist.  I don't think Rand Paul is a conservative, either.  I do think Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, Rush Limbaugh and others of their ilk are conservatives.

During the last campaign, Romney himself would not call himself a conservative, only that he applied conservative principles to his decision making.  GWB would not call himself a conservative, either.  He had to soften it with "compassionate."  In my book, if a politician is not willing to stick the label on himself, it's a pretty doggone good bet that he or she is compromised in some way. 

All that said, I think conservatism as an ideology is a loser as a proposition in a general election in the USA.  There need to be more people brought into the tent than free market advocates, patriotic and religious types.  All three of these are shrinking constituency groups.  Traditional moderation won't do it, either.  People simply won't trust it.  Only a true reformer can win against the Dem machine.

A couple of points Vic.  I don't doubt that a true reformer, as you put it may be necessary to win, but remember the definition of conservative is moderation.  Conservatives are very hesitant to make any significant change without substantial assurance they understand the potential for the unforeseen dilemma. 

And in my book it takes a lot more than a self-sticking label to make one a conservative.  It isn't just the issues du jur that make one a conservative.  As I said with Reagan, most on the right would consider him a conservative not just because he believed it, but because they overlook his mostly moderate, sometimes even liberal mode of leading.  And go back to his acceptance speech.  It wasn't "conservative" social issues, but the cold war and the debt.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I don't disagree that Reagan governed as a moderate.  But he was not afraid to champion the conservative cause, and to hold himself up as a symbol of how a conservative should be and live.  For that reason, conservatives are generally willing to overlook a lot of his moderate policy initiatives.

Where do you see Reagan "champion the conservative cause" please?

I see in Reagan a great compromiser.  From signing debt busting budgets, to protecting American steel, to arms for hostages I see a leader willing to bend his principles and do what is needed to get things done. 

[truth_seeker]

Where do you see Reagan "champion the conservative cause" please?

I see in Reagan a great compromiser.  From signing debt busting budgets, to protecting American steel, to arms for hostages I see a leader willing to bend his principles and do what is needed to get things done.

Reagan was like Obama, in that he gave very good, occasionally great speeches. Contemporary "conservatism" clings to those speeches as their most satisfying hold on political power.

If Reagan were running on his record today, he'd be called "rino," GOPe, establishment, too old, etc.. All for the sin of being a pragmatic politician, that got things done and won elections, instead of whining and whimpering from the outside.

[MACVSOG68]

Reagan was like Obama, in that he gave very good, occasionally great speeches. Contemporary "conservatism" clings to those speeches as their most satisfying hold on political power.

If Reagan were running on his record today, he'd be called "rino," GOPe, establishment, too old, etc.. All for the sin of being a pragmatic politician, that got things done and won elections, instead of whining and whimpering from the outside.

I don't disagree that Reagan today would not be a favorite of the right wing.  The fact though that the principles of conservatism have been hijacked by some on the right doesn't necessarily make them conservative.  To the right, Cruz is considered a "true conservative" in spite of some rather less than conservative utterances and moves.  But I won't deny his basic principles of conservatism just because he strays from time to time, any more than it's fair to deny Reagan in spite of his governance.  It all boils down to issues and how a candidate lays out his (or her) position on them.  I don't see Cruz and others like him as viable candidates, but the key is how they appeal to a majority of voters, not some segment of the right wing, religious, anti-immigration or otherwise.

[olde north church]

I don't disagree that Reagan today would not be a favorite of the right wing.  The fact though that the principles of conservatism have been hijacked by some on the right doesn't necessarily make them conservative.  To the right, Cruz is considered a "true conservative" in spite of some rather less than conservative utterances and moves.  But I won't deny his basic principles of conservatism just because he strays from time to time, any more than it's fair to deny Reagan in spite of his governance.  It all boils down to issues and how a candidate lays out his (or her) position on them.  I don't see Cruz and others like him as viable candidates, but the key is how they appeal to a majority of voters, not some segment of the right wing, religious, anti-immigration or otherwise.

I think a lot of what's going on with Conservatism is the inability to separate what's important and what's fluff.  Did Reagan's acknowledgement of Rock Hudson's AIDS make him a supporter of the gay agenda?  President Reagan's withdrawal of troops from Beirut after the attack at the barracks soft on terror?
Put the focus back on the monetary and military, the important things.  Everything else is a luxury.  We can't afford luxuries.  You don't like it, don't vote, support the real Sodomite enablers, drop to your knees and wait for the Rapture.