True in theory, perhaps, but not in practice.
Just look at the last at least 5 primary cycles: "Conservatism" has fallen to the point of extended bickering over which candidate is most deserving of "The Mantle of Reagan."
Where are the debates over conservative ideas? Where's the discussion of why conservative ideas are better than what's currently running the country? There's little or none of that anymore -- hasn't been since, maybe, GWB's first campaign. "Conservatism" as a movement is very sick.
Conservatism got hyphenated. It's hard to stay healthy when you are divided into subunits.
Instead of a single set of unifying principles, now you could be a conservative a la carte. One from column A, two from column B, would you like egg roll? It doesn't work that way. Conservatism was never meant to be chopped up into moral morsels and put on the philosophical buffet, it was a full meal.
No more than a person will function as designed if whole sections or vital organs are removed, will conservatism function if whole portions of the philosophy are severed. In either desperation to defeat the Marxist juggernaut that overran the Democrat Party, or moral laziness, Republicans decided it was allowable to be an 'exceptional' conservative (as in "I'm a conservative, except ___________ (fill in the blank with pet liberal position)). Note, the founders didn't say "...
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these Life, or Liberty, or the pursuit of happiness--nope, all three were included together, and that was just the beginning. It isn't two out of three, but all of them. (One cannot support abortion, for instance, and make the grade). So, being conservative as a concept became a diluted and corrupted version of itself.
And that, too, is a fallacy. Politics is about personalities, just as much as it's about principles. Politics is about people dealing with one another, and those who don't play well with others generally don't succeed. Leadership, character, vision ... those are all personality things, not ideas; and in the political world they're indispensable.
Cruz didn't get along with those who would not stand against Obama and the Dems in the Senate, who were reneging on their oath of office to uphold and protect the Constitution, and selling out their constituents and the American People. To me, that's a virtue, not a fault, and I want someone with the sand to stand on principle and fight for that. I have little doubt that the likes of John Boehner 'got along' just fine and were invited to all the 'right' cocktail parties, but is that what they were supposed to be doing in DC?
Donald Trump isn't running on 'getting along with others', either, but that is different. Donald Trump's whole campaign, from the Wall, to the lies and deceptions about Cruz, to the series of polarizing attacks starting with something so little as calling his opponents names, to encouraging violence toward protesters, orchestrated booing, the only unity he proposes is 'us' (Trump supporters) vs the world, but most especially those who don't kiss the ring of Donald Trump. He rabidly attacks 'our own', but hasn't really reserved his vitriol (nor have a number of his supporters) for the opposition in this race, instead choosing to attack those who have refused to bend their knee to him within the GOP. He pays lip service to being an 'outsider' while schmoozing with the same people he allegedly wants to defeat (the 'establishment'), instead attacking those who were fighting them.
How do you consider getting what amounts to an angry mob to follow the lead torch "unity" or "playing well with others" when he even advocates voting out those conservatives
who will not have endorsed him?
Silencing opposition right down to using internet trolls, fake twitter accounts, and dominating media may seem effective, but it isn't unifying, any more than the purges of Free Republic have produced "unity", or any other pogrom does. It isn't getting along with others, it is inciting a mob, declaring everyone who isn't kneeling before you the "enemy", and eliminating them, not unifying those who dissent behind common principles. Just because there is a crowd, doesn't even mean he's getting along, he has just pointed everyone at the same victim. The only problem is, he isn't even standing on principle, just the anger of frustrated and scared people. It is the unity of a lynch mob, with reason cast to the winds, an 'all who aren't with us must be eliminated' mentality, and "us" is defined by those who follow their 'dear leader', not who simply believe in something that transcends the individual.
There is not one damned thing conservative about that, when you consider the Constitution, the seminal purpose of this Republic was/is to protect the rights of individuals--including the right to disagree.
What ever happened to "I may not agree with what you said, but will defend to my dying breath your right to say it"? That whole idea, that concept of all having Rights, whether we agree with them or not has gone out the window of late. One thing is certain, Trump is not the embodiment of it; He's a fraud.
