I understand his point that there are "other issues" more urgent than small government fiscal conservatiism, and that we may need to sacrifice fiscal conservatism so that we can win elections and do those other things.
The problem is that I don't see how you can ever reverse that. Because now, your voting base will include lots of people who will abandon you if you ever try for small government and fiscal responsibility. So you'll always have that exact same excuse for not advocating for smaller government/fiscal conservatism, and we all know where the inevitably will lead.
It is a direct assault against the primary Reaganite directive, which is the main reason I will never move.
Reagan's Conservative Coalition was an agreement between factions, each with their own immovable principles... FICON, DEFCON, and the newly minted SOCONs, that it was no skin off their nose to vote for a Conservative that embraced ALL their principles, And when one such was found, the Conservative juggernaut came together, unstoppable.
Ever since, it has been about changing the definition thereof, and the moderate wing especially promotes that change, knowing damn well how short their stay would be in the face of a true Conservative uprising... And how readily their 'swamp' would be drained by a true believer... because the 'swamp' runs on money, and there is no money in a Conservative administration.
So it has been since then, that the principles of Conservatism are denigrated in favor of NEOCON desires, always with a new kind of Conservatism supplanting (or attempting to) the old Conservative order... ALWAYS with fiscal and libertarian concerns thrown under the bus, with a lip service to Christians because their votes are needed, and feigned glory toward the military - because they are the power of government.
Every time. Just the same.
And every time, Conservatives, standing upon principle (as they always do) are left holding the blame bag when they will not vote otherwise. It's the same old story, every_single_time.
