A right-wing revolt against Trump? Dream on. Conservatives never truly spoke for the Republican Party rank-and-file

[roamer_1]

Your answer seems to be "no."

No, that is not my answer.

The factional groups DO exist. Each of them revolve around their own sets of principles, and each of them are conservative.

Goldwater Conservatism combines them all, except without Social Conservatism per se, and with a bit of a different outlook toward defense - Still 'Peace through Strength', but more isolationist in foreign policy.

Reagan Conservatism is what most folks consider to be big 'C' Conservatism.

Reagan came out of Goldwater's wing, so natively embraces Goldwater's 'Libertarianism'.
Reagan also made room for Social conservatives at the conservative table, thus all the factions were embraced by the 'three-legged stool'

Reagan's emphasis on social conservatism revolved largely around the abortion issue, which was still nascent in his day, but also included an acceptance of general Christian principles as being a part of what Conservatives conserve. These moral issues were the hingepin of the 'Southern Strategy', which gave the Republicans the South.

So to truly understand Reaganism, one must embrace the principles of all the factions. Thus your answer necessarily includes them for study as separate entities.

[The Jackal]

Is there a single uniting principle?  I'm reaching the conclusion that there is not, and instead there is a collection of positions, unrelated to each other in any way except for being called "conservative".  I quickly grow tired of political charges that someone is or is not a real conservative, in the absence of a definition, but I no longer know what is that definition.  In particular for trade policy and foreign affairs we don't seem to have a consensus definition on what "conservative" means.

I can't think of an issue on which my position would not be identified as "conservative" by most people but I have begun down-playing "conservative" as my position because I can't define it in the abstract.  FWIW I find much in Trump's past and present I disagree with, consequently I'm not a Trump supporter.  However I'm not looking for a debate here on whether or not Trump is a conservative, I want to know what the word now means.

Any ideas from the forum?

The principle of subsidiarity. That solutions to problems should be undertaken closest to the people it affects. It's inherent in our governmental structure from city councils to the federal government. That is the essence of conservatism. So, when one finds themselves saying, "I don't know what conservatism means anymore" its time to go back to basics. To ask the question which entity is able to effect a solution to the problem but more importantly, which entity is most accountable by virtue of proximity to the people. This principle can apply to whether your city gets that new traffic light to whether there should be US military intervention in the middle east.

[HoustonSam]

The factional groups DO exist. Each of them revolve around their own sets of principles, and each of them are conservative.

Thanks roamer_1.  I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and I appreciate your perspective on the various schools of thought and their inter-relationships.  But if they each revolve around their own sets of principles then there must not be one single principle.  How is it that each is conservative if they each revolve around their own sets of principles?  What is the one thing that makes each one "conservative?"

[truth_seeker]

True. But it's my observation that while many conservatives truly are conservative on some issues, e.g., social issues,  they remain very far from conservative on others. The problem, in my opinion, is that they don't understand - or desire - what it means to be a true conservative. For those folks, being partially conservative is enough. And that's pretty much what they get from the GOP: partial conservatism.

Reagan set it up with his remark about 70-80 percent being good with him. It was a governing philosophy, and it was a political party philosophy too.

It still is, but from time to time there are arguments. Homosexuality and immigration are two topics without complete agreement. 

[HoustonSam]

The principle of subsidiary. That solutions to problems should be undertaken closest to the people it affects.

Thanks Jackal, that is an excellent answer, and certainly a principle that I believe in.

But I struggle to apply this to the "conservative" position on abortion.  Rick Santorum does *not* believe that the solution to abortion should be undertaken closest to the people it affects; he believes in an amendment to the US Constitution making abortion illegal from coast to coast, while others who also call themselves conservatives simply advocate a repeal of Roe v Wade, with the corresponding implied Federalism solution.  Would you argue that Santorum's position is not conservative, or is perhaps less conservative, than the pure Roe v Wade repeal argument?

A similar problem might be the state-by-state legalization of marijuana.  Subsidiary would seem to argue in favor of Colorado's right to legalize, while many other people who call themselves conservatives remain opposed to legalization, and other conservatives point out problems caused in interstate commerce caused by Colorado's decision.  Would you argue that the latter groups are not conservative, or less conservative?

Not trying to draw you into a fight, I'm just looking for insight.  Your identification of subsidiary as the essence of conservatism is insightful but I'm not sure I agree that the Venn diagram is 100% overlapped.  But maybe I'm just substituting some of my own preferred policy outcomes for honest thought.

[alicewonders]

The heck with trying to figure out a common definition of "conservative" - can someone please tell me what the Republican Party stands for these days?  Nowhere have I seen a vision statement lately.  It used to be smaller government, less taxes, strong national security, pro-life.....haven't seen it defined lately.

What is their message?  How is it being promoted and is it one that will ignite enthusiasm for a better America?

[roamer_1]

But if they each revolve around their own sets of principles then there must not be one single principle. 

Sorry, I didn't get that that was what your were looking for. No there is no one principle. Principled Conservatism is a set of principles.

How is it that each is conservative if they each revolve around their own sets of principles?  What is the one thing that makes each one "conservative?"

It is a matter of emphasis or focus. As an example, fiscal conservatives find importance in different things than social conservatives. Fiscal conservatives tend toward capitalism, trade, monetary policy, business and tax issues.

Social conservatives find importance in moral issues - Life, Marriage, the Judeo-Christian Ethic.

Each fight to conserve that which they see as important principles, each holds views considered conservative, preserving the American way - But at least on the surface, while both are important, they don't overlap very much.

But I would submit that, philosophically, the argument for the American way, the argument toward Conservatism, requires both (e.g without a moral people you get crime, drug abuse, bastard children, single parent homes, etc, which create a need for welfare that makes fiscal conservatism impossible)...

The same applies across the factions - while they are all focused on their own thing, fanatically supporting the things they see as beyond price, the truth is that we require them all to preserve any. That, in practice, is Reagan Conservatism.

That is not to denigrate factional conservatives - I admire, and truly appreciate their zeal and adherence to principle. I consider them all brothers in arms.  But we only win when we are together, and Reagan makes that possible.

[The Jackal]

Thanks Jackal, that is an excellent answer, and certainly a principle that I believe in.

But I struggle to apply this to the "conservative" position on abortion.  Rick Santorum does *not* believe that the solution to abortion should be undertaken closest to the people it affects; he believes in an amendment to the US Constitution making abortion illegal from coast to coast, while others who also call themselves conservatives simply advocate a repeal of Roe v Wade, with the corresponding implied Federalism solution.  Would you argue that Santorum's position is not conservative, or is perhaps less conservative, than the pure Roe v Wade repeal argument?

You're welcome. I think in this instance both could be considered conservative. When one considers that it was the US Supreme Court who took this issue away from the states then the principle of subsidiarity was violated. Now that it is in the federal realm the two solutions are either a Constitutional amendment or remand back to the states. It becomes a question of prudential judgment at that point. Which avenue is most likely to produce a favorable result? On the one hand a Constitutional amendment is an extraordinarily tough thing to do, but so is appointing five Supreme Court justices willing to overturn a precedent. So I think reasonable people can discuss the different courses of action. Although I would argue that since SCOTUS decided for America, it's only prudent that America make the decision through an amendment.

A similar problem might be the state-by-state legalization of marijuana.  Subsidiary would seem to argue in favor of Colorado's right to legalize, while many other people who call themselves conservatives remain opposed to legalization, and other conservatives point out problems caused in interstate commerce caused by Colorado's decision.  Would you argue that the latter groups are not conservative, or less conservative?

I wouldn't argue they are less conservative. I've read where Colorado's legalization is affecting other states. So the question then becomes can the affected states, through their own legislatures, do something about that? If not, and it truly is an interstate commerce issue (a principle which has been abused no doubt about that) then I don't see a problem with a state seeking redress through the federal courts or through federal legislation. But that again goes to the judgment question. Either course would be acceptable to me.

Not trying to draw you into a fight, I'm just looking for insight.  Your identification of subsidiary as the essence of conservatism is insightful but I'm not sure I agree that the Venn diagram is 100% overlapped.  But maybe I'm just substituting some of my own preferred policy outcomes for honest thought.

I've asked these questions myself and it can be difficult to find what we would call the conservative approach. We see some of it with the 10th amendment arguments, or Article V conventions. But in all of those mechanisms we find the principle of subsidiarity at work. 10th amendment obviously says that anything not enumerated by the Constitution is given to the states or the people and an Article V convention called by the state legislatures seeks to address federal issues to which the federal government is no longer responsive. So it allows for the more responsive elements of government to act in the best interests of the people. 

[HoustonSam]

Each fight to conserve that which they see as important principles, each holds views considered conservative, preserving the American way - But at least on the surface, while both are important, they don't overlap very much.

But I would submit that, philosophically, the argument for the American way, the argument toward Conservatism, requires both (e.g without a moral people you get crime, drug abuse, bastard children, single parent homes, etc, which create a need for welfare that makes fiscal conservatism impossible)...

The same applies across the factions - while they are all focused on their own thing, fanatically supporting the things they see as beyond price, the truth is that we require them all to preserve any. That, in practice, is Reagan Conservatism.

That is not to denigrate factional conservatives - I admire, and truly appreciate their zeal and adherence to principle. I consider them all brothers in arms.  But we only win when we are together, and Reagan makes that possible.

Honest, insightful, and compelling.  Thanks roamer_1.

[HoustonSam]

The heck with trying to figure out a common definition of "conservative" - can someone please tell me what the Republican Party stands for these days?

I've been wondering about that for a while now.  I decided I could no longer go with the Republican Establishment defining "Republican" simply as "not as bad as Democrat", and I find now that I can't go with Republican Populist voters doing it either.

[roamer_1]

Honest, insightful, and compelling.  Thanks roamer_1.

Thank you for your kind reply. Happy to be of service.

[HoustonSam]

I've asked these questions myself and it can be difficult to find what we would call the conservative approach.

It's not a bad thing that our philosophy forces us to grapple with hard cases and ambiguous examples in a search for principle and clarity.  Thanks for sharing your honest and careful thought.

[goatprairie]

True. But it's my observation that while many conservatives truly are conservative on some issues, e.g., social issues,  they remain very far from conservative on others. The problem, in my opinion, is that they don't understand - or desire - what it means to be a true conservative. For those folks, being partially conservative is enough. And that's pretty much what they get from the GOP: partial conservatism.

I can agree with that. I would say a certain pct. of both parties  are members or vote that way because that's what there parents did. They swallowed whole everything their parents said or really didn't think much about it.
I've talked to numerous people who from they way talked about certain issues I assumed were a certain party.  Many times it was one particular issue that held their allegiance to a certain party.
 For example my dear, deceased father sounded like a Republican when you'd hear him talk about social issues and many other issues that involved national defense and working. Plus, he was a salesman for most of his working life  But he was a diehard Dem almost until he died.
Reading the arguments of many of the pro-Trumpers on TOS, they certainly don't sound like they've ever read a piece of conservative literature. Or too many books period. 
What's disturbing about them is they view Trump as the White Knight who will ride in and  fix the country with little or no effort. They're as delusional as the Obamatons who thought King Barack would make things perfect for them.

[HoustonSam]

Reading the arguments of many of the pro-Trumpers on TOS, they certainly don't sound like they've ever read a piece of conservative literature. Or too many books period. 
What's disturbing about them is they view Trump as the White Knight who will ride in and  fix the country with little or no effort. They're as delusional as the Obamatons who thought King Barack would make things perfect for them.

My thesis is that serious Trump supporters are supporting his attitude.

Many of us become emotional about our support of something we believe in; I'm not immune from that fault nor are many other Cruz supporters.  But at its root I support(ed) Cruz because of actual substance, not his attitude.  In fact I can see how his personality and mannerism put many people off, but his substance is what matters to me.

I believe Trump's supporters are drawn to his belligerence.  It makes no difference how ignorant, narcissistic, or inconsistent his statements are, they support his attitude.  It is not a question of substance so it is immune to logic, and they project what they want to hear onto his word salad in order to maintain their delusion that attitude is the same as competence.