Good Afternoon Nominal,
I see it close to the way you do, (I think...); more of a circle, (which I have attached) and I am not really sure if I agree with the, "Fascist" tag....In my opinion, Fascists reject egalitarism, which is a major component of the Democratic Party to date. As stated, I see political and economic systems more of a "circular" and, "Varying Degree" type of status.
Nominal, I wrote the crux of this (below) about a year ago, and although somewhat off of point from what your focus is on, I think it defines and describes my political viewpoint:
In my opinion, the United States is still a very conservative Nation. Americans, (and yes, I am stererotyping) for the most part, believe in a host of conservative principles, a few of which are: The concepts of free speech; a free, independent press; the right to own firearms; the right to be secured in their homes, papers and effects without unreasonable searches; a right to a fair trial by an impartial jury; a strong national defense; and a federal and State government that are limited and "restricted"; especially when it comes to the government's involvement in our day-to-day lives. All of these sound familiar, and are tenets from our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Nevertheless, all of these principals are conservative principles that as stated, for the most part most Americans believe in. I don't think there is any denying this.
To classify "conservatives" as, "Republicans" is misplaced. There are at least four or five broad classifications of voter types that usually vote Republican; a coalition if you will; and some of these group's beliefs obviously overlap. Just as important, again, I am stereotyping:
The "Social Conservatives", or "traditionalists"; sometimes unflatteringly referred to as the "fundamentalist religious zealots"; of which family, church and community are their most important issues;
The "Economic Conservatives"; who view nature as actually benign, encouraging individualism, experimentation, and entrepreneurship;
The "Libertarians"; or "Constitutionalists; who in general look for a strict adherence to the Constitution, and a very limited, restricted government;
The "Fatalists"; or, (again for lack of a better term) the "NeoCons"; (and I detest that term, because by definition, all "NeoCons" are former Democrats) who generally believe in a strong central government, with a "Federalist" perspective. See Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Mort Kondrake; et. al.
I will be the first to admit, that the Republican Party lost its way in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In general, (again, I am stereotyping!!) President Bush was not a conservative, but some hybrid "moderate", or "egalitarian" with "NeoCon" and "social conservative" viewpoints.
To classify "conservatives" as, "Republicans" is misplaced. There are at least four or five broad classifications of voter types that usually vote Republican; a coalition if you will; and some of these group's beliefs obviously overlap. Just as important, again, I am stereotyping:
The "Social Conservatives", or "traditionalists"; sometimes unflatteringly referred to as the "fundamentalist religious zealots"; of which family, church and community are their most important issues;
The "Economic Conservatives"; who view nature as actually benign, encouraging individualism, experimentation, and entrepreneurship;
The "Libertarians"; or "Constitutionalists; who in general look for a strict adherence to the Constitution, and a very limited, restricted government;
The "Fatalists"; or, (again for lack of a better term) the "NeoCons"; (and I detest that term, because by definition, all "NeoCons" are former Democrats) who generally believe in a strong central government, with a "Federalist" perspective. See Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Mort Kondrake; et. al.
I will be the first to admit, that the Republican Party lost its way in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In general, (again, I am stereotyping!!) President Bush was not a conservative, but some hybrid "moderate", or "egalitarian" with "NeoCon" and "social conservative" viewpoints.
With the exception of Jimmy Carter, the Bush Administration might very well have been one of the worst presidencies in yours and my lifetime, (although the Johnson Administration ranks up there too).
Like it or not, if Republicans want to be in the majority, all of these aforementioned groups must form a coalition, (which we have done successfully for the most part of the latter half of the 20th Century). Both economic and social conservatives, as well as the Libertarians, and NeoCons are stuck with one other, if we want to be in the majority--or at least if we do not want a coalition of egalitarians, socialists and fatalists in control.
To even protect ourselves from the governmental intrusions of the "egalitarian-socialist-liberal" and "fatalist-NeoCon" types on the left, Traditionalists and Libertarians must respect each other's bottom line values. Economic conservatives must be explicit that the traditional values are the goal, even if they stress more that the means should be voluntary ones. Social conservatives must recognize a difference between recognizing moral ills and the temptation of translating their solution into national laws, even if they must insist upon public discussion of the ultimate value-goals and their solution by voluntary and local means. If both conservative factions do not accommodate their natural allies, the other guys will determine what the goals are and use national government means to enforce them.
This is the reason that I chose (now, almost three years ago); to once again get very active in Republican politics here locally (in the State of Florida) in an attempt to take my party back from those who I believe have hijacked the leadership of the Republican Party.
Like it or not, if Republicans want to be in the majority, all of these aforementioned groups must form a coalition, (which we have done successfully for the most part of the latter half of the 20th Century). Both economic and social conservatives, as well as the Libertarians, and NeoCons are stuck with one other, if we want to be in the majority--or at least if we do not want a coalition of egalitarians, socialists and fatalists in control.
To even protect ourselves from the governmental intrusions of the "egalitarian-socialist-liberal" and "fatalist-NeoCon" types on the left, Traditionalists and Libertarians must respect each other's bottom line values. Economic conservatives must be explicit that the traditional values are the goal, even if they stress more that the means should be voluntary ones. Social conservatives must recognize a difference between recognizing moral ills and the temptation of translating their solution into national laws, even if they must insist upon public discussion of the ultimate value-goals and their solution by voluntary and local means. If both conservative factions do not accommodate their natural allies, the other guys will determine what the goals are and use national government means to enforce them.
This is the reason that I chose (now, almost three years ago); to once again get very active in Republican politics here locally (in the State of Florida) in an attempt to take my party back from those who I believe have hijacked the leadership of the Republican Party.
No question, the "fundamentalist religious zealots"; (Again, for lack of a better term) and "NeoCons"; and as stated, I despise the term "NeoCon", but everyone seems to understand to some degree, who I am referencing have been in control of the Republican Party for way too long, causing disarray, and party splits on a number of issues, that would take too long to get into, but by example, Terri Schiavo, the Patriot Act, The Department of Homeland Security, and our lack of a succinct immigration policy and securing of our borders are great examples of complex issues where the Republican Party has failed, because of those NeoCons and Zealots being in control.
The Republican Party Leadership must return to and once again advocate the "Conservative-Libertarian-Constitutionalist" values that were so successful, and of which Ronald Reagan championed and advocated back in the 1980s. I believe that you are going to see a house cleaning in 2010, on both sides of the aisle, and a return to these conservative libertarian principles in the next 18-24 months, which still allows for and respects those Traditionalist/Social Conservative values and champions fiscal responsibility and the principles of the Economic Conservatives.
Keith
The Republican Party Leadership must return to and once again advocate the "Conservative-Libertarian-Constitutionalist" values that were so successful, and of which Ronald Reagan championed and advocated back in the 1980s. I believe that you are going to see a house cleaning in 2010, on both sides of the aisle, and a return to these conservative libertarian principles in the next 18-24 months, which still allows for and respects those Traditionalist/Social Conservative values and champions fiscal responsibility and the principles of the Economic Conservatives.
Keith
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment