Cruz: Those who bolstered Trump 'will bear that responsibility going forward'

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

And yet another example how we allow liberals to control the conversation by controlling the terms.

Could you explain this?

[INVAR]

And yet another example how we allow liberals to control the conversation by controlling the terms.

Isn't that the truth?  That is without a doubt the most salient point made in this whole thread.

[Sanguine]

Then it looks like you answered your own question:

The term is useful if we use it with the understanding that it is a very broad umbrella that includes a lot of different opinions.  It's useful as a relative term compared to progressivism, but the point is that we should be very conscious when using it that it doesn't always mean the same thing to each of us.

And, you answered my question.  When everything is relative, it becomes meaningless.

[roamer_1]

So either the Christian conservatives won't show up even when someone does court them (Bush 2000), or you are vastly overestimating their numbers.

Or you are vastly underestimating their numbers - Christians are notable for big families - and there should, within the time frame, be enough time for another whole generation to hit the field (why I said up-thread that I think their numbers are undervalued)... Certainly so between W1 and Romney. They are *not* voting for you.

Nearly everyone I know used to be Republicans. Now I know very few. But by and large, my circle is hard core Christian. Most of them vote like I do, or sit it out.

[RoosGirl]

Could you explain this?

What is the definition of conservative?  In politics it has historically had one meaning.  Yet many here will call themselves "conservatives" and then trash the socons.  Well, socons have always been part of the conservative political movement.  So why should a person call themselves a conservative when they hold something other than social conservative values?  Why not call themselves neo liberals?  When they call themselves conservatives and aren't wholly conservative, they are changing the definition of the word.

A BLT is sandwich with Bacon Lettuce and Tomato.  Is it still a BLT if it has only lettuce and tomato?  Would a vegetarian go to a restaurant and order a BLT and expect it to come with no bacon?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

And yet another example how we allow liberals to control the conversation by controlling the terms.

But it's not the liberals doing it.  It's people who tend to lean Republican/right doing it to ourselves.  You've got one group (that includes you) who insists that if you're not a Christian/social conservative, you're not a conservative.  Others who insist that conservatism must include free trade, others who say it must include a strong defense, or secure borders....and it goes on and on.  You can see it in this very thread, with some posters trying to define it for everyone else.

Regardless of who is right or wrong, it's not the left doing this.

[RoosGirl]

But it's not the liberals doing it.  It's people who tend to lean Republican/right doing it to ourselves.  You've got one group (that includes you) who insists that if you're not a Christian/social conservative, you're not a conservative.  Others who insist that conservatism must include free trade, others who say it must include a strong defense, or secure borders....and it goes on and on.  You can see it in this very thread, with some posters trying to define it for everyone else.

Regardless of who is right or wrong, it's not the left doing this.

Isn't it?  It's all relative, correct?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Or you are vastly underestimating their numbers - Christians are notable for big families - and there should, within the time frame, be enough time for another whole generation to hit the field (why I said up-thread that I think their numbers are undervalued)... Certainly so between W1 and Romney. They are *not* voting for you.

Okay, fine, but I stated the point in the alternative.  Either 1) there aren't as many as you think, or they don't vote even when a candidate does court them.  So assuming you're right about the numbers, here's your next statement:

Maybe you should support a candidate that is attractive to them. When is the last time the Christians were courted? I'll tell you: Dubya's first term.

So by your own example, here's a guy who courted them, and they still didn't show up in large numbers.  He barely scraped by, and lost the popular vote.  Same with Huckabee -- I tossed his name out there as a candidate for whom that is a core constituency, and he courts them as assiduously as anyone ever has.  Yet, he can't get above 20% in a primary.  Why not? 

If you're right that there are these gigantic numbers out there, what's the point of courting them if they're not going to show up anyway?  They might as well not be in the electorate at all.

Nearly everyone I know used to be Republicans. Now I know very few. But by and large, my circle is hard core Christian. Most of them vote like I do, or sit it out.

I think it is a mistake to gage the size of a voting block nationally based on one's own circle of acquaintances.  I think your number is very high, at least if you're talking about Christian conservatives who also have conservative political views.  Either that, or they don't -- and haven't ever -- really shown up in force at the polls.

[INVAR]

This whole discussion regarding the definition of Conservatism has truly illustrated that we are no longer a movement, a people or a nation with any rudder or anchor.

We are adrift in a sea of moral and political relativism.

At some point, the ship is going to capsize and take everyone on board down with it.

Fact of history and human nature.

[RoosGirl]

This whole discussion regarding the definition of Conservatism has truly illustrated that we are no longer a movement, a people or a nation with any rudder or anchor.

We are adrift in a sea of moral and political relativism.

At some point, the ship is going to capsize and take everyone on board down with it.

Fact of history and human nature.

That's what happens when the liberals bash the socons and the non-socon "conservatives" either don't stand up for them or go along with the liberals.  There's no reason to believe anything other than what is convenient or comfortable, including the DoI or COTUS,

[aligncare]

But it's not the liberals doing it.  It's people who tend to lean Republican/right doing it to ourselves.  You've got one group (that includes you) who insists that if you're not a Christian/social conservative, you're not a conservative.  Others who insist that conservatism must include free trade, others who say it must include a strong defense, or secure borders....and it goes on and on.  You can see it in this very thread, with some posters trying to define it for everyone else.

Regardless of who is right or wrong, it's not the left doing this.

Totally lucid, dude... that's three on my growing list of buddies today.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Isn't it?  It's all relative, correct?

No, everything isn't relative.  But the meaning of a political term can and often does shift over time.  "Conservatism" is a concept.  It didn't come down on a stone tablet, but was a term coined by political/social commentators.  And it has been debated, and discussed, and argued over, to the point where there is simply disagreement over the meaning.  Heck, "liberal" means the exact opposite in Europe than it does here.  So who is "right"?

I'd point out that you yourself have used the term "conservative" with a modifying word -- "social conservatives".  What do you call someone who is socially conservative, but who also supports a more activist "generous" government?  Or what do you call someone who is conservative in all respects except religious belief.  What are they?

Honestly, I don't even see the point much of arguing over the meaning of the word.  Okay, say you're right, and that you can't be a "conservative" unless you are a social conservative Christian.  Great.  So then "conservatives" are really only 10-15 percent of the electorate, and a minority within the GOP , which explains why we don't nominate candidates who fit your definition of "conservative."

[Maj. Bill Martin]

This whole discussion regarding the definition of Conservatism has truly illustrated that we are no longer a movement, a people or a nation with any rudder or anchor.

We are adrift in a sea of moral and political relativism.

At some point, the ship is going to capsize and take everyone on board down with it.

Fact of history and human nature.

I personally don't believe in either moral or political relativism.  I think a moral grounding, generally religious is essential.  That's what I personally believe, and it is my own personal grounding as well.  A fair number of our Framers were essentially Deists, and they did fine.

But I don't think our political leaders should push particular religious views, although I do support them advocating morality, whether based in religion or not.  So, I couldn't care less if a politician is a Baptist or a Mormon -- I do care about the moral beliefs that may flow from their religious beliefs, though, and if those are consistent with I believe to be good moral teachings, that's as far as my inquiry goes.

[RoosGirl]

  What do you call someone who is socially conservative, but who also supports a more activist "generous" government? 

A liberal.

I used the term socon for the sake of this discussion.  I never said anything about having to be a Christian.  There is a need for at a minimum a belief in a Creator.  Otherwise, as I said, DofI and COTUS are just words on paper, and we can all call Bill and have a discussion of what "is" means.

The other examples you described may all fall in with being a Republican, but they aren't what the historical meaning of conservative is. As I asked before, why not call themselves neoliberals?  What Europe calls itself has no bearing on this conversation.

[RoosGirl]

I personally don't believe in either moral or political relativism.  I think a moral grounding, generally religious is essential.  That's what I personally believe, and it is my own personal grounding as well.  A fair number of our Framers were essentially Deists, and they did fine.

But I don't think our political leaders should push particular religious views, although I do support them advocating morality, whether based in religion or not.  So, I couldn't care less if a politician is a Baptist or a Mormon -- I do care about the moral beliefs that may flow from their religious beliefs, though, and if those are consistent with I believe to be good moral teachings, that's as far as my inquiry goes.

How do you advocate morality without a religious base?  There's no reason for that morality to stay the same.  The "morals" of the population could eventually drift to murder (like they already have here) being acceptable under certain circumstances.  There is no reason to believe that murder is wrong other than a never changing religious base; God.

[truth_seeker]

I am continually fascinated by those who somehow find an need to prove they are "conservatives," as if it is vital.

But that alone is not enough, for they go on to debate endlessly the precise definition of conservatives, almost always clinging to the idea they alone are in the "correct" grouping.

It seems to not cross their minds, that they need votes from folks that don't entirely agree with them on everything, and by being so rigid, they drive away the very supporters they need to win.

I think Ronald Reagan could explain this, and did. It is part of a logic/math situation, which I mention from time to time.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I am continually fascinated by those who somehow find an need to prove they are "conservatives," as if it is vital.

Because if you're not a rock-ribbed conservative then you're a dirty filthy hippie commie homosexual pervert!!!!! It's either or, no in between!!!

/s

[RoosGirl]

I am continually fascinated by those who somehow find an need to prove they are "conservatives," as if it is vital.

But that alone is not enough, for they go on to debate endlessly the precise definition of conservatives, almost always clinging to the idea they alone are in the "correct" grouping.

It seems to not cross their minds, that they need votes from folks that don't entirely agree with them on everything, and by being so rigid, they drive away the very supporters they need to win.

I think Ronald Reagan could explain this, and did. It is part of a logic/math situation, which I mention from time to time.

It's a word.  And as such has a meaning.  Indeed, why do some feel the need to label themselves as such if that's not what they are?  Is there no other word that has historically encompassed everyone we are talking about, not just the traditional conservatives, but every other "what if" that is described here?  Isn't Republican that word?  Is there something necessarily wrong with being only a Republican?  Seems to me like it's the current Republicans that are telling the conservatives to get lost.

[INVAR]

No, everything isn't relative.  But the meaning of a political term can and often does shift over time.  "Conservatism" is a concept. 

"Conservatism" is a term that embodies the principles that established us as a society and nation; the principles of the Revolution.  The principles of the Framing.  That includes everything from fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility and morality as rooted in the scriptures and accepted by the Judeo-Christian culture that at one time the people of this nations stood upon as the common foundation for everything that flowed from that.

Since we are no longer a people that share or stand on a common foundation anymore, the very concepts of liberty and freedom itself are now relative and changeable. 

As the Founders warned us, a people who are not governed by God, will be ruled by the tyranny of men.

Well here we are.  In the midst of the tyranny of men, arguing over definitions that no longer apply to a people that abandoned their foundations for one reason or another.

I'd point out that you yourself have used the term "conservative" with a modifying word -- "social conservatives".  What do you call someone who is socially conservative, but who also supports a more activist "generous" government?  Or what do you call someone who is conservative in all respects except religious belief.  What are they?

The same kinds of people who call themselves "Christian" but believe in homosexual marriage and transgendered rights.  They call themselves whatever gets acceptance.  Redefine words to mask what they really are and then redefine definitions to remake principles better suited to their lifestyle and wordlview.  It doesn't matter that none of those positions reflect the principles of the Founding, because we as a people have already abandoned those principles to sate our own appetites and comfort levels. 

Great.  So then "conservatives" are really only 10-15 percent of the electorate, and a minority within the GOP , which explains why we don't nominate candidates who fit your definition of "conservative."

True.  And yet everyone looks at the symptoms of tyranny and the loss of liberty and blames this group or that group without ever recognizing the actual root cause of the reasons we suffer the miasma of miseries we are experiencing, refusing to even allow themselves to register the warnings of a people destined for subjugation and destruction from within.

A people not governed by the religion and morality that established us, are not a people that are capable of freedom.

Freedom will simply be seen as doing whatever one pleases, and getting away with it.  One person's freedom is unabashed sexual conquests and the other person's freedom is imposing Sharia Law on infidels.

No longer any common bridge of foundation to stand upon as a nation.

[HonestJohn]

A BLT is sandwich with Bacon Lettuce and Tomato.  Is it still a BLT if it has only lettuce and tomato?  Would a vegetarian go to a restaurant and order a BLT and expect it to come with no bacon?

If the vegetarian walked into a vegan restaurant and ordered a BLT, I'd expect they'd get a veggie-version of the BLT with fake bacon.

---

A personal example for me is that fact that I grew up in Texas and eating Texas BBQ.  That means you get beef ribs when you order ribs, not pork.  When I moved out of the state and found a BBQ restaurant, the first couple of times I ordered ribs from them, I had to have them take the order back... as they did not serve beef ribs, but pork.

For other places in America view BBQ ribs as pork, not beef (stupid idiots!!!  BBQ is BEEF, not pork.  Grrr.).

[Maj. Bill Martin]

A liberal.

I used the term socon for the sake of this discussion.  I never said anything about having to be a Christian.  There is a need for at a minimum a belief in a Creator.  Otherwise, as I said, DofI and COTUS are just words on paper, and we can all call Bill and have a discussion of what "is" means.

The other examples you described may all fall in with being a Republican, but they aren't what the historical meaning of conservative is. As I asked before, why not call themselves neoliberals?

Well, call them whatever you want.  They won't pay any mind anyway.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

"Conservatism" is a term that embodies the principles that established us as a society and nation; the principles of the Revolution.  The principles of the Framing.  That includes everything from fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility and morality as rooted in the scriptures and accepted by the Judeo-Christian culture that at one time the people of this nations stood upon as the common foundation for everything that flowed from that.

Says you.  I'm not saying that to be rude, simply pointing out that someone else can take a contrary view of the definition and there is no higher authority to play arbiter.  So we end up with nothing but semantisicm.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It seems to not cross their minds, that they need votes from folks that don't entirely agree with them on everything, and by being so rigid, they drive away the very supporters they need to win.

I agree, but why do you suppose that is?  I can come up with two hypothesis, but I'm sure there are more:

1) It doesn't cross their mind because they have false understanding of the popularity of their views.  They don't see the need to build alliances or coalitions because they believe they are the "Silent Majority" (or some such) and someone need only intone the correct words for that majority to stand up and be counted.

2) it does cross their minds, but they'd take greater joy in being absolute right and losing, than in being 80% right and winning.  In short, winning control of the government just isn't that important to them.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Why is the idea that semantics are mutable controversial? That should be obvious with even a cursory look at the subject. It's human nature.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It's a word.  And as such has a meaning.  Indeed, why do some feel the need to label themselves as such if that's not what they are?  Is there no other word that has historically encompassed everyone we are talking about, not just the traditional conservatives, but every other "what if" that is described here?  Isn't Republican that word?

No, Republican is a terrible word for that.  It's a political party, so you can be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-Obamacare, whatever, and still call yourself -- with 100% complete accuracy -- a "Republican".

Now me personally, I think there's nothing wrong with one person referring to themselves as a "Social Conservative" and another as a "Libertarian conservative".  Both are descriptive.  But apparently, that's not acceptable, and the only correct definition of "conservative" is "social conservative".

You can push for that if you'd like, but that's not how everyone else uses the term, so you're bound to be disappointed.