The RNC writes
Friday May 25, 2007
From a reader:Got a letter in the mail from the RNC yesterday. Here's a paragraph I found interesting:"Your commitment to our core principles of lower taxes, a strong national defense, limited government and individual freedom is the driving force behind...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
But note what is missing: nothing about the importance of the traditional family or the culture of life, the chief reason many of us bother to vote Republican at all. The only reason I ever vote Republican, that's for sure. And I can't help but think I'm not alone. That's why I expect the GOP to go down in flaming defeat in 2008. If Giuliani is the nominee, I hope the party is wiped off the face of the earth.
I'm not a big reader of RNC letters, although I do get them from time to time, but I don't think social conservatism has ever been emphasized in them. The feeling in the Republican Party is that financial contributors are usually businessmen (and women) who are motivated by taxes and national defense. Social conservatives are more likely to volunteer in a campaign, and of course are an important voting block. So it's not surprising that a fund-raising letter wouldn't say much about social issues. I think it's been that way for a long time.
"I'll continue to vote Republican, simply because Republicans in office means social conservatives in more positions of power in government bureacracies, more conservative judges, and so forth. Conservatives can only operate in government when Republicans are in power." Rod, I can't tell you how good that sounds. I really was starting to think that you were laying the groundwork for supporting a Pat Buchanan-type candidate in 08, thus splitting the Republican vote again.
All I can know is that as bad as Hillary! might be, it wouldn't be as bad as Idiot the II on Wall Street. Otherwise operationally there's no real difference. Which says a whole bunch more about Dubya than Hillary!.
Funny, the libertarians aren't too happy these days either. Last I heard, they think their GOP had been taken over by big-government evangelicals. Politics ...
Cleveland: Rod, I can't tell you how good that sounds. I really was starting to think that you were laying the groundwork for supporting a Pat Buchanan-type candidate in 08, thus splitting the Republican vote again. Alas, Cleveland, read the item again. That's not me writing that; it's my reader, the recipient of the RNC mailing. Me, I don't expect to vote in the presidential election next year, though it is a long time off, and anything could happen.
Claude and Trotsky make good points I hadn't thought of. Perhaps it is a matter of 'direct marketing'...
"Conservatives can only operate in government when Republicans are in power." I question this assumption. Certainly it's not true in the case of judges, and I would argue it's also false in numerous bureaucratic positions (the Federal Reserve, the Pentagon, the FBI, the NSA, etc). Maybe in some bureaucracies it's true, but I'd like to see some examples. How many conservatives were fired under Clinton for their political beliefs?
Sometimes it seems to me that conservatives assume everyone is as partisan as the Bush administration. In my experience, it's not true.
Kit, Thanks for that observation. Let me clarify my poorly worded observation: When we select a President, we're empowering him or her to select his or her administration -- dozens and hundreds and thousands of people who are going to wield a lot of power. In Clinton's case, although he himself could be described as 'moderate', there were a lot of hard-core liberals that got access to the levers of power because he was in office. With Bush in office, although not nearly as conservative as I would like (or, perhaps better, not conservative in the *way* I would like), hard-core conservatives operate in government. Similar situation in regards to the House and Senate. The balance of power affects committee chairpersonships, the legislative process, etc. I guess "can only operate" was too strong, and what I'm saying is that we'll generally have a more conservative government and judiciary when GOPers are in power, as loathsome as the GOP at a given point may or may not be.
But note what is missing Umnnnhhh...how about "smaller Gummint"? For that matter, "individual freedom" is kinda going away, too--see, e.g., the Patriot Act.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.